+- World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc. (https://worldbeyblade.org)
+-- Forum: Other (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-Other)
+--- Forum: Closed Threads (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-Closed-Threads)
+--- Thread: Should CS Be Included In Tests? (/Thread-Should-CS-Be-Included-In-Tests)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Dan - Nov. 13, 2011
The banning of testing one of the most widely used tips of the MFB series is plain dumb: test results would not have any relevance to competitive play.
Hazel may have completely smoked me with his witty response but he is right.
This idea is even more ludicrous when it can easily be solved by stating the damn characteristics of your CS. As cool as it is to see 2 giants duke it out intellectually, there is no value in it.
If stating the characteristicsis not accurate enough, video would do, but damn this is getting intricate.
I don't even care what your arguments are anymore: banning the CS tip in testing is not sensical. Let's just generalize it to defense like I originally intended: that is what most CS have in common. I blame basalt for making CS come across all deep and defiant. Standard shoot to break your CS into a more aggressive state, bank to have a calmer variant. All these wonky launching techniques probably helped form a bunch of CS' into mutants.
I'm already losing sight of what I was originally pointing to..
Edit: damn that spelling mistake bothered me...
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Kai-V - Nov. 13, 2011
Hazel asked that we stopped arguing in a private message, so basically I just should not reply anything to all of this apparently while others will continue ...
I think my argument totally has value; too bad if you do not see it, but since I honour such requests I will not try to show it to you anymore by replying and inevitably arguing more here ...
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Hazel - Nov. 13, 2011
I am insisting that this discussion be closed in general, honestly. More people can chime in, but... I do not see a chance of anyone coming up with something likely to change the minds of the people familiar with the part.
I am also not entirely trying to de-value your opinion - it is based on your point of view, and that is not something I can speak for. Obviously I am aware that CS's variables make certain things harder to interpret. I just feel we would be worse off for banning it, even considering the faults with it.
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Arupaeo - Nov. 13, 2011
(Nov. 13, 2011 6:04 AM)Kai-V Wrote:(Nov. 13, 2011 5:47 AM)Uwik Wrote: I dont think banning CS from tests altogether is the best solution. Keep it as it is, but just take the CS tests with a grain of salt. It is still a legitimate part, it's still used a lot in tournaments, and surely while tests differ, it can still give a basic idea.The few of us in this forum could take them with "a grain of salt", but you know really well how nobody else will, and/or it will start more arguments anyway because when someone will come up with results featuring a CS, some members will definitely become aggressive about it and almost beat up the person for posting such results ...
At a certain point you have to ask yourself, "who are these tests really going to benefit anyway?". In my view, the people sniping at each other and getting into frivolous arguments about worthless distinctions won't really benefit from testing no matter how we treat or classify CS.
So... Ignore them, and do the thing that provides the greatest benefit to those who have the willingness to read between the lines and follow up with their own tests for their own CSs. That is to say, I think we should continue to test with CS, and classify the CS behavior as best we can while doing so.
And as always, I am in favor of warnings being given to those who engage in aggressive or intimidating behavior. Removing one excuse surely still leaves many more...
Sorry for jumping in so late btw. I just got the wifi working here on the bus.
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Shabalabadoo - Nov. 13, 2011
Kai-V's points are making a lot more sense statistics wise, especially because the difference between RS, RSF, RB, and CS are being extremely exaggerated.
(Nov. 13, 2011 7:00 AM)Kai-V Wrote: As Dan mentioned, in the past, there was even only one variation of CS. Try to teach people your method and have them prove that they got it completely mastered, and/or have them mention which CS they have and how they made it act, but we potentially have to gather four times more results ...This is pretty much exactly why I opened this topic. Nobody launches the same way, and when that's coupled with CS' variations, it's not really accurate in the sense of why people even post tests here.
I think it's completely worth using other parts than the "oh so unique that god gave it to us" part; CS. Tests aren't even to give solid information, but rather, a guideline. If you want to test CS, go ahead. But as I mentioned at the beginning, Kai-V had a very very different opinion from me on what CS is best for defense. So if we use RS/RSF/RB as a guideline, why don't you just test it after that with what you want? If it's a big deal to you, then you obviously have the parts, so just don't be lazy and figure it out for yourself.
(I really wish you would continue Kai-V)
-------
Here's what I mean about having also to do with opinions, and how the differences are being exaggerated:
(Nov. 13, 2011 7:05 AM)Hazel
Left-Spin will RUIN RS and RSF. CS stands a significantly better chance agaisnt them.
[/quote' Wrote: Then you need to practice with the other two more, honestly. If you're against left spin, it should be relatively easy to win with all three, because of weak launching. Weak launching doesn't always have to be almost to the point of losing spin you know. Often times, it's less helpful. I've tested weak launching with Rubber Bottoms a lot, and it works against both spin directions.
Quote:CS will win against RS and MOST RSF combos(though the aggressiveness of the two is the deciding factor).Then comes the different opinions, where I like an aggressive CS.
Quote:CS is a very powerful part for Anti-Meta or Counter-Attack-based Defense combos, RS and RSF aren't.How is RSF not? It can be completely aggressive or not at all, depending on how you angle your shot, how strong it is, and where you aim the Beyblade. And it stays that way for the whole battle. So I don't see how RSF isn't?
Quote:CS can Tornado Stall. RS and RSF cannot.RSF definitely, definitely, definitely can.
Quote:CS will outspin other Defense tips reliably, even at Aggressive(though Aggressive requires TS, usually, as mentioned above).The type of CS I prefer doesn't outspin a prime condition RF.
Quote:CS can be manipulated by launch technique to behave differently even within its own physical condition.So can RSF.
Quote:CS's "type" can be easily controlled by wearing it appropriately in response to its current state. Opposite banking wears the rubber down extremely fast on a hard launch, for example - it acts as a legal way to keep the part consistent.But what do you call the appropriate condition? There's opinions on that matter, so there's no right or wrong answer. That's statistically incompetent.
(Nov. 13, 2011 7:39 AM)Arupaeo Wrote:(Nov. 13, 2011 6:04 AM)Kai-V Wrote: [quote='Uwik' pid='837566' dateline='1321159637']The few of us in this forum could take them with "a grain of salt", but you know really well how nobody else will, and/or it will start more arguments anyway because when someone will come up with results featuring a CS, some members will definitely become aggressive about it and almost beat up the person for posting such results ...
I dont think banning CS from tests altogether is the best solution. Keep it as it is, but just take the CS tests with a grain of salt. It is still a legitimate part, it's still used a lot in tournaments, and surely while tests differ, it can still give a basic idea.
At a certain point you have to ask yourself, "who are these tests really going to benefit anyway?". In my view, the people sniping at each other and getting into frivolous arguments about worthless distinctions won't really benefit from testing no matter how we treat or classify CS.
So... Ignore them, and do the thing that provides the greatest benefit to those who have the willingness to read between the lines and follow up with their own tests for their own CSs. That is to say, I think we should continue to test with CS, and classify the CS behavior as best we can while doing so.
And as always, I am in favor of warnings being given to those who engage in aggressive or intimidating behavior. Removing one excuse surely still leaves many more...
Sorry for jumping in so late btw. I just got the wifi working here on the bus.
I think people should really only use tests as a rough guideline. If it's a guideline and starting point, a person does their own tests with their own preferences. That's my whole take on tests in general.
-------------
Damn invisible post
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Hazel - Nov. 13, 2011
When you're talking competitive edge, against Left-Spin, you have a significantly higher chance of success, weak-launched or otherwise(!), using CS.
RSF can only TS with half of the competence a CS can - and even then, it will still not spin as long. RSF's aggression is hideously overstated - while it CAN be mean and evil like a heavily worn RF, it CANNOT touch the speed of a CS in Aggressive or even Semi-Aggressive condition, and you're just blatantly wrong to think otherwise. RSF also cannot be manipulated nearly to the degree that CS can. Two or three simple movement patterns(none of which change the reality of its stamina problem) versus four or five which dynamically alter the part's Stamina, Defense, and Attack.
RSF is not as fast as CS in conditions that favor aggression. It also cannot dynamically shift between types during combat. Anti-Meta and Defense-Stamina Balance both depend on factors that CS excels at. RSF is a fool's gamble in both situations, comparatively.
"Appropriate Condition" will be defined by the parameters I outlined, which are literally idiot-proof. I don't even want to see one single person say anything along the lines of "Calm is hard to discern". There is no "opinion" to be had but the ones people with a brain in their skull have - and among those people, I severely doubt there would be any argument on the definitions of "Calm", "Semi-Aggro", and "Aggressive".
I have said every single thing there is to be said on this argument, and clarified it to the nth degree. This thread never should've been opened. If CS only even had ONE unique application or distinguishing trait(though it has three at the bare minimum), banning it from testing would be absolutely out of the question.
I am done here; there is no more argument to be made. The "unreliability" of CS testing is being disgustingly overestimated here, when it is quite easy to classify launch type(Launch type being stated is dictated in Standard Procedures, in point of fact) and CS condition. If ANYTHING were to be done because of this thread, the most I would suggest(and it's something I'd suggest anyway!) is including a uniform Launch Procedure in the Standard Procedures for CS testing, unless it is the strict intention of the use of the CS to behave an alternate way, at which point it should be mentioned regardless.
This thread, given that it involves the idea of banning something, was more likely to instigate argument than discussion right from the beginning, and with the argument being so uneven... well, in general, I do not like arguing, especially not when it comes to part viability, given that it is such an extremely variable creature in and of itself. My findings with RSF are based on both molds, which I have two each of(I found another one!), and tested as aggressive and calm parts. My findings on CS are based on my absolutely ludicrous amount of CS usage.
I do not expect you to have the same findings, because quite frankly, rubber tips are a beast of variation among all people. Keep in mind that you especially have a physique capable of more consistent(and likely powerful/controlled) launching than I, and many other Beybladers, do. Ultimately, I feel exceptionally strongly that while there are some unstated variables in tests regarding this part, they are not the giant they're made out to be, and resolving them is as simple as mandating a few more things in test result procedures.
SSJ, I had your post quoted, but for the life of me I couldn't get it to format in a non-ridiculous way. I apologize.
EDIT:
Oh, actually, I did have one more thing to say. Tests are valuable in even the most ludicrous of conditions - but when the conditions are as simple as launch variation(which, again, is mandated to be stated by the Standard Procedures of the Customizations Forum) and aggression of the part, it can be quite interesting and thought-provoking to see tests against Aggressive CS, Semi-Aggro CS, and Calm CS, as one will very surely encounter at least two of the three types in your average 12+ person tournament(unless it is in a region dominated by Stamina or Attack, of course).
Sure, it'll start arguments, but... what doesn't, exactly, in the customizations forum? That forum can be anything from a nice, helpful test factory(read: absolutely never), to something more akin to a bar fight that kangaroos have been introduced to. CS is no more argument-inducing than any other tip that launch method has impact on - in fact, lately, most fights have been about RF and MB, not CS.
Food for thought, I guess? But, the horse is pretty much dead. Arguing about this, when it is very clear that it was never a viable subject for argument in the first place, is just wasting the time, resources, and blood pressure of the Advanced Forum. I have personally been exceptionally aggressive in this discussion, and it is likely because I do have such comfort with this part, and for that I apologize.
This post was huge. It started out much smaller, but I wanted to cut out the likelihood of me having to continue arguing, so I got out absolutely everything I could think of saying.
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Uwik - Nov. 13, 2011
@Shab: would you mind reposting your last post? It came up blank.
Hazel: It is a discussion, there's no need to get worked up over it. Shab made this thread because he probably feels that there's a little too much variables in CS tests. Kai-V just stated her opinions on the matter, which hold as much weight as yours and mine. It seemed like you all of the sudden blew up.. Lol. Your reasonings are sound, but I sense that you're a bit tensed up over this.
I disagree about one thing though. CS does have more variants than the simple Aggro, Semi, Calm. The shape of the rubber and plastic when primed / worn, play an important factor also (flat rubber, ball plastic, flat plastic, ball rubber, etc) I guess launches play a big role also.
I think Arupaeo explained it best, that while restricting tests with CS is unwise, there's pretty much nothing that stops member from arguing anyway. If members are ignorant enough to blindly agree with all the tests done, then let them be. The sceptic few who do their own tests will benefit themselves anyway. Also a little moderation for the occasional aggression concerning different results over in the customization forum might be a good thing.
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Hazel - Nov. 13, 2011
(Nov. 13, 2011 8:02 PM)Uwik Wrote: @Shab: would you mind reposting your last post? It came up blank.
Hazel: It is a discussion, there's no need to get worked up over it. Shab made this thread because he probably feels that there's a little too much variables in CS tests. Kai-V just stated her opinions on the matter, which hold as much weight as yours and mine. It seemed like you all of the sudden blew up.. Lol. Your reasonings are sound, but I sense that you're a bit tensed up over this.
I disagree about one thing though. CS does have more variants than the simple Aggro, Semi, Calm. The shape of the rubber and plastic when primed / worn, play an important factor also (flat rubber, ball plastic, flat plastic, ball rubber, etc) I guess launches play a big role also.
I think Arupaeo explained it best, that while restricting tests with CS is unwise, there's pretty much nothing that stops member from arguing anyway. If members are ignorant enough to blindly agree with all the tests done, then let them be. The sceptic few who do their own tests will benefit themselves anyway. Also a little moderation for the occasional aggression concerning different results over in the customization forum might be a good thing.
Quote SSJ's post and you can see what he said in it, in order to respond. That is what I had to do - when you quote too much or your quoting format gets funky, your post appears blank.
I did thoroughly explain my reasoning for being so aggressive - making a point when someone is simply going "nope" over and over again often requires a more cannonball-esque touch. Especially in such a one-sided situation as this seems to be. I also earlier mentioned that everyone's points of view have value, and even went on to explain different reasons behind why we'd be seeing different things, in my most recent post. "A bit tensed up" is somewhere in the neighborhood of outer space relative to exactly how borderline infuriating this thread is, to me, which is precisely why I am striving to say as much as I can in each post. To be entirely honest, I find the idea of banning a part from testing to be absolutely pig disgusting, and bordering on ignorant. Testing provides information. More information is never detrimental in such a scenario.
The different performances between Calm/Semi-Aggro/Aggressive aren't really that big of an impact outside of those classifications, though. I mean to say, they aren't different enough to have a huge impact. I've only noticed four or five straight-launched "types" as my CS has gradually worn. Launch technique is the big deal. The keynote point of testing, in my opinion, is a double-purpose:
1.) To provide a baseline for those who cannot/do not want to test to see a rough idea of(only valid in the case of multiple source points, generally).
2.) To provoke people to discuss and test the ideas on their own.
CS does not counteract either of these points, and in fact emphasizes 2 to a great length, which can be nothing but beneficial for our Customizations Forum community.
I have spoken to Committee Members a couple of times regarding the frequent aggressive arguments that occur in the Customizations Forum, and it's simply often a matter of people not reporting it - which I am finally starting to do, despite initial hesitation, under their advisement.
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Shabalabadoo - Nov. 13, 2011
Yo, you know the original intention was not a yes or no question or answer? And you're kinda the only one arguing...
And just so you know, there's completely legitimate points everywhere in here, and not one "nope". I don't know where you see this so if you could point it out, it'd definitely be better for this discussion than anger.
Even from what you're saying, using and not using CS is situational. I completely get using CS in the stamina tests, and in defense vs defense, but that's obviously not all that CS gets used for.
The most recent example of CS's messed up results is this topic:
http://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Hell-Aquario-H145R2F-Hell-strikes-back
BeybladeStation did completely legitimate tests, has done many Attack Tests in the past, and yet, according to several people, "It's his launching". Guess what, in his tests, he had an aggressive CS, and in your tests, you used a "semi-Aggro". There's been plenty of other times where this has happened, each time "yaw, it's yer lawnchin"
So I don't understand why it's really frustrating you to the point of this anger towards a topic that doesn't make the world blow up.
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Hazel - Nov. 13, 2011
It's a very "rocking the boat in calm waters" type of ordeal. Surely you understand that to even say "Should this part be banned?" is a very serious thing? It is absolutely not the kind of thing for "casual discussion" - it borders on being a very harsh allegation, and does not lose any such presence just because you put it in question form.
In case it wasn't painfully obvious, I consider the "nope" arguments a point in an argument where one party is not providing new information, simply refuting older information by recycling their own statement, which is what I considered the entire "compared to RS/RSF/RB" thing to be. Which is why I pointed it out, broke the issue down into its base forms, and thoroughly explained my point.
If CS weren't a valid entity against Attackers, it wouldn't be the most-used part against Attackers. Plain and simple. RS is now widely available to Hasbro Bladers, and RSF is getting there, as well. I should also point out that I do get better results from CS than RS in most cases, and RSF in pretty much all cases, but it is entirely due to knowing how to use my CS - I will not state again the vast differences in performance that are available to CS which aren't available to RS/RSF simply by launch differentials, as I've mentioned it quite enough.
I am aware of the argument that occurred in that thread, but I could point out similar arguments all over that forum about individual parts that are both more more drawn-out and more aggressive than that one was.
Condemning information - and thereby potential knowledge - simply because of occasional dispute over it is just... ugh. "Disgusting" is the only way I can phrase it without just as well posting a giant image of a carp. If CS gets banned from testing, Defense testing will never be the same in any regard. Versus Attack, versus Defense, versus Stamina, versus Balance, versus Anti-Meta, all of it will suffer a negative consequence(in many cases, an extremely noticable one) from this hideous decision. That is why I am defending this point with such vigor.
I suggested alternatives to banning it - things I do feel should be done regardless of the turnout of this discussion - in my previous post, as a reminder.
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Dan - Nov. 13, 2011
It must have been his launching, and here is why I think so: if his CS is aggressive that means it is on its rubber, side while that provides more grip, if it is far too overbearing it will become far too easy to KO. (As soon as contact is made, it would be hit and probably revert to its less gripped part, being S) Unless you are banking, which he would not be with a Defense-type bey, this would probably happen and it would be easier to KO. If he could not KO it while in this state, there aren't many answers but to plead incapability of the user. Even if what I am saying is wrong/not properly explained, it is a fact that if your MF-H Basalt BD145CS is closer to the tornado ridge than normal (such as riding it, like a properly aggressive CS would), for whatever reason, it makes something like MF Vulcan 100RF capable of getting a decent KO.
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Hazel - Nov. 13, 2011
If a user isn't using the appropriate CS for a type of test, it is on the user, not the part. The part is not behaving the way it behaves out of spite, but the user is using the wrong one for the occasion out of ignorance.
However, Dan, you are immediately incorrect by assuming that an Aggressive CS is necessarily going to be riding the TR, or close enough to it for a "tap out" KO. Any experienced Aggro CS user WILL know how to counteract the obvious negatives of an Aggressive CS, just as any experienced Attacker will know how to counteract Rubber being all silly-willy-on-pain-pilly. You can Slide an Aggressive CS, you can Bank it, etc.
His launch technique IS what provided his results - but assuming he is incompetent is the wrong way to go with it. If anything, his results may show that he knows how to use CS. It is possible he was launching it in a way specifically designed to counter the combo - Aggro CS aren't defensively incompetent, they're Anti-Meta. In MY tests in that thread, I used a simple Straight Launch, which is what I feel should be the standard launch procedure for Semi-Aggro and Calm, as it is the most reliable. Aggressive CS do present a challenge of sorts in this regard, but it is not insurmountable, and a test against an Aggro CS is not invalidated by its variables, and we allow RF and R2F testing, despite the competency of their users often being questionable - my own competency is included in this categorization, no less.
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Dan - Nov. 13, 2011
I don't think I'm wrong at all: If someone is ignorant enough to launch their aggressive CS with a standard shot, it will be nearly riding the TR and if it isn't, it wouldn't really qualify as an aggressive CS, would it?
I should probably clarify my categorization of CS':
Aggressive: when hit it will usually go berserk but Basalt's imbalance will be a fine alternative to that which is the case here.
Semi-Aggressive: I'd consider this a properly functioning CS which could be slide shot, banked, what have you and be aggressive, but maintain decent stillness when standard shot. Driger S lol.
Calm: The CS that got bullied as a kid, completely passive and not willing to move: bound to the S part.
If he was launching in a special way, it would have/should have been mentioned obviously..
We can't really assume everyone knows how to use a part perfectly, no matter which variant their given, can we?
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Hazel - Nov. 13, 2011
It's usually better to assume the better of people, in the case of things that might spark arguments - all tests are taken on good faith to begin with. If you've got serious evidence to assume he wasn't sliding or banking his Aggressive CS(which would make it much harder to KO for an Attacker), then that is another story - however, I do believe(and have stated numerous times, now!) that it should be absolutely mandatory that launch techniques be especially mentioned with deep emphasis concerning CS usage. Simply looking at his tests, I can see how you would assume incompetency, but after what he had said leading on from that, I am 50/50 on it. Regardless, this thread is not about him or that specific instance.
Your definition of Aggressive is what I consider Transitionally Aggressive - that is the point at which it can be very easily switched back to Semi-Aggro. Full-on Aggressive is just straight up mad about everything and runs around like it's playing pretend RF unless you have an inhumanly perfectly straight launch.
Clarifying the classifications is needed, but once done, it solves the problem, if people obey Standard Procedures(which specifically call for launch technique to be mentioned if it is worth mention).
EDIT: I feel it is worth mention that the pure Aggressive category is only ever really present/possible with new Hasbro CS. Getting a CS back into THAT kind of RF-esque condition is very, very difficult, if not impossible entirely without illegal modification, as it requires the plastic to be further into the rubber than you would usually naturally be able to get it.
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Dan - Nov. 13, 2011
I'm glad we share the exact same opinion (except the differ in BBS' skill) and the solution is really simple: outline all the details of the match(es), how your CS acts, and how you launched it. Not too different than how we treat RF.
Unless there is some out of left-field opinion/view-point I'd say this discussion is over.
(Kai-V's cue, if she wishes to proceed and probably clobber me)
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Hazel - Nov. 13, 2011
That was my original point, honestly - we treat RF and R2F exactly the same way we should be treating CS, because they both provide identical "variables", in a testing sense. Although, in their cases, it is occasionally only a present variable because someone is using a part that is illegal... but, nonetheless!
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Kai-V - Nov. 14, 2011
(Nov. 13, 2011 11:30 PM)Dan Wrote: (Kai-V's cue, if she wishes to proceed and probably clobber me)
There is no point in trying to post anything else when I was called scientifically incompetent, when my point seemingly had no value, when my point is "disgusting" and "dumb", when it is a perpetual "nope" apparently, etc. Even if it might not be the point that makes you go completely to the "we should ban it" side, for sure, Hazel, you should have been open-minded enough to actually take it in and consider it. You never did, and you just attacked me for it continually. I was just trying to show a facet of the case of CS that I thought should at least be mentioned, even if the conclusion ended up being the same as it is now.
This topic, in my opinion, does not really show the very best for most of us and I am not certain it is that good for everybody who is not an Advanced Member to have their eyes fixed on this discussion as if it were an example. Shabalabadoo, do you think anything else could ever be said about this ?
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Dan - Nov. 14, 2011
Playing devil's advocate is as bad as it sounds.
I'm certain much of it wasn't meant to be taken to heart or even directed at you on a personal level, which from what I read is sort of the impression you got, Hazel was just very passionate in his view.
Sorry if I at all offended you as well.
Hard to type this kind of thing without coming across as a complete jerk.
RE: Should CS Be Included In Tests? - Shabalabadoo - Nov. 14, 2011
(Nov. 14, 2011 2:07 AM)Kai-V Wrote: Shabalabadoo, do you think anything else could ever be said about this ?
I'm at a loss of words or whatever that saying is. I honestly have absolutely nothing more to say. I was quite shocked with the direction this ended up taking, and I'm pretty speechless because of it.
(In other words, you can close, lock, or whatever to this topic
)