+- World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc. (https://worldbeyblade.org)
+-- Forum: World Beyblade Organization (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-World-Beyblade-Organization)
+--- Forum: Discuss worldbeyblade.org (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-Discuss-worldbeyblade-org)
+--- Thread: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) (/Thread-Should-playing-fields-and-or-stadium-stabilization-be-standardized-BB-10)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Kai-V - Jul. 29, 2012
We could also just ask that stadiums do not get placed directly on grass, but that something, just like a piece of carton board, gets put beneath them. It will be needed for Zero-G Stadiums anyway ...
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Ingulit - Jul. 29, 2012
(Jul. 29, 2012 7:58 PM)Kai-V Wrote: We could also just ask that stadiums do not get placed directly on grass, but that something, just like a piece of carton board, gets put beneath them. It will be needed for Zero-G Stadiums anyway ...
This is completely legit; basically everyone has access to cardboard somehow and it would be an easy standard to uphold (just make sure people bring cardboard to tournaments as well as stadiums). It would provide a very standard amount of stadium movement too. Heh, people could even use the stadium fences as the playing surface if they don't have anything else!
The only problem I see is some potential for wind gusts to cause minor chaos, but barring that I think this would be a good idea (cardboard being standard). What does everyone think?
Spoiler (Click to View)
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Galaxy - Jul. 29, 2012
(Jul. 27, 2012 1:34 AM)Hazel Wrote:(Jul. 27, 2012 1:31 AM)Shabalabadoo Wrote: And Galaxy, I think that example pretty much shows that there is a big enough discrepancy to warrant standardization; and not that we should ignore it.
I agree with this.
I don't want to ignore anything xD
I've only said that I don't like the fixed stadiums. I think that, fixing them, the play will be less "regular".
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Yamislayer - Jul. 31, 2012
Mmh I don't know, Fixed stadiums are obvously different (so yeah what galaxy said can be true if we take the non fixed stadiums as the "regular" beyblading)
I played a bit and i noticed one positive aspect and a negative one:
+ Fixed stadiums do actually reward accuracy at shooting
- in a fixed stadium youhave to shoot anrf with less power, self killing happens more often cause it's easier to go out.
but, what if the "regular" beyblading was meant with a fixed stadium? I've always been wondering that.
After thinking a bit I'd say it's better to leave it as it is now.
Why? Well...
1) Standardization would be a problem
2) People always played like this till now, so maybe it's a bit late
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Ingulit - Jul. 31, 2012
(Jul. 31, 2012 12:28 PM)Yamislayer Wrote: After thinking a bit I'd say it's better to leave it as it is now.
Why? Well...
1) Standardization would be a problem
2) People always played like this till now, so maybe it's a bit late
This is a completely valid argument, it being a little late to standardize something that hasn't been brought up very much before.
Following similar logic, I think that we WILL need to standardize Zero-G stadiums before they're officialized since we'd be able to give a recommended standard from the very start as oppose to so late in the stadium's lifespan.
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Kai-V - Jul. 31, 2012
Zero-G Stadiums are definitely a whole other story ... The judge will have to make sure that the stadium is completely still between each new launch, etc.
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Yamislayer - Jul. 31, 2012
Blame me for what I'm about to write, but in my opinion Zero G stadium destroyed this game in its competitive aspect. maybe you can still create a competitive gameplay there, but you know, technical skills will never be the same.
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Kai-V - Jul. 31, 2012
I think you have just not played enough with Zero-G, hah. I do not know why, but Italians are the only ones who seem to hate Zero-G so much. Everybody else is excited about this new type of play.
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Yamislayer - Jul. 31, 2012
It's not that I hate them, but the technical level isn't the same there.
Also, i noticed that luck is more involved in zero g stadiums.
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - th!nk - Aug. 02, 2012
I disagree. The swaying stadium does introduce slightly more luck but there is plenty of tactical work to be had in terms of using that swaying to your advantage.
People who have used the stadiums seem to enjoy them greatly, and I think we often forget that we do this for fun.
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Serotonin - Aug. 03, 2012
(Jul. 31, 2012 2:31 PM)Ingulit Wrote:(Jul. 31, 2012 12:28 PM)Yamislayer Wrote: After thinking a bit I'd say it's better to leave it as it is now.
Why? Well...
1) Standardization would be a problem
2) People always played like this till now, so maybe it's a bit late
This is a completely valid argument, it being a little late to standardize something that hasn't been brought up very much before.
Really, why? The community should always be looking to improve the metagame and making it more fun and competitive. I'm not sure that fixing the Stadium particularly detracts from the enjoyment of the game - nor do I think that it's a good idea not to change something because "that's how we've always done it". That's kind of the point of this forum, to discuss details of the metagame, whether it be promoting new theories or resolving antiquated ones.
It takes two seconds for someone to viably secure the Stadium to create a more standardised environment. It seems like a no-brainer to me, and I've yet to read anything in this thread to really convince me otherwise.
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Ingulit - Aug. 03, 2012
Well, regardless of whether or not stadiums should be secured, we need to come up with a standardized way to either secure or not secure it that is easy for players to do at a tournament.
Some ideas that have been proposed:
For Not Stabilizing
- Always have a stadium on a cardboard surface
For Stabilizing
- Put shoes, rocks, or something similar around the stadium's edges to stop the stadium from moving
Any others? Again, we need to come to an agreement on this so we can firmly state what the standard method for this should be.
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Pcyborg - Aug. 16, 2012
I'm in for stablised game play, however I'm not too keen on the idea of taping it down... Especially on an extremely flat surface with excessive amounts of tape.
Completely sealing air in would turn it to a drum and beys would definitely bounce more than usual during launch. Just 1 second more of air time can affect results/performance. Lighter/more aggro/rubber based tips would definitely be more affected by this.
I would suggest the use of anti slip mats for stablising. You can use em practically anywhere (as long as surface is flat) and its portable.
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Kai-V - Aug. 16, 2012
Are anti-slip mats affordable, hah ?
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - Pcyborg - Aug. 17, 2012
Absurdly cheap ones, yeah. At least I got mine from the local dollar store lol.
RE: Should playing fields and/or stadium stabilization be standardized? (BB-10) - th!nk - Aug. 17, 2012
I'm again concerned about availability, though we have some anti-slip material, it's not an everyday household object, and I don't think we want to make tournaments any more difficult to host than they already are.
Would taping in three places (nominally, behind the walls), with an equal amount of gaps perhaps be a decent middle ground? I'm sure there must be a way to do this without forcing people to do any more work than they are with getting the cardboard, which I'm still uncomfortable with, for the record - especially seeing as we're okay with people using stadiums without a tornado ridge, but concerned that otherwise identical stadiums might move. I really don't think the effect of stadium movement is that big a deal - though I would like to see some stadium movement-abusing combinations to judge that.
Also, if we do restrict it to a cardboard surface, what of other flat surfaces like particleboard? I don't think I actually have any cardboard large enough for a beystadium at this point, at least not any that is stiff enough to work, but I do have some particleboard.
The use of "cardboard" brings up another issue - cardboard is a very broad term, and I think the ruling, if we go ahead with it, should address the properties of the surface, not the material itself. People can then address what they're using in tournament proposals so the committee can ensure it's approprioate.
That said, I remain strongly unconvinced that the movement effect is worth the hassle for hosts to address. Even if it is simple, it makes hosting seem more complicated at first which will inevitably discourage people.