(May. 15, 2022  6:43 PM)Abellia Wrote: Currently in the rulebooks, there is a subsection under banned Physical Modifications exempting "Displacement of part components that have to give to them by hand."

Should this be allowed? It is the one outlier where we allow modifications that does not line up with the manafacturer's intended use case, with the other three exemptions being battling against another beyblade, launching into a stadium, and assembly/disassembly of the beyblade with other parts in the series.

The main case of this is to allow Vanguard's inner plastic portions to be bent downwards to legally increase burst resistance, but this could very easily open up to other parts - messing with the mechanism of Greatest Raphael's halo gimmick to increase its same spin potential, stretching the Vanish blade out to increase its shock absorption capabilities, bending the tabs on Ignition', Hybrid, Generate, Shot, and Almight to increase burst resistance, and so on. 

Examples of Vanguard:
Normal: https://imgur.com/9KnxpbF (from zankye)
Bent: https://imgur.com/EdQHjCV (from zankye)
Videos of what it can accomplish: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjMmIp2MSKQ&list=PLpulVhDE83fPmgOXPXjKI8izg7G1mmGzV
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/680851523776937984/973980378509496320/20220511_164328_1.mp4
(from th!nk)

As cool as it is to see the Lightning L. Drago remake successfully fighting off Dynamite Battle competitive customs, I don't think it's worth bending the rules. 

So: should bending parts by hand count as illegal modification?

(May. 15, 2022  7:13 PM)CrisisCrusher07 Wrote:

(May. 15, 2022  6:43 PM)Abellia Wrote: Currently in the rulebooks, there is a subsection under banned Physical Modifications exempting "Displacement of part components that have to give to them by hand."

Should this be allowed? It is the one outlier where we allow modifications that does not line up with the manafacturer's intended use case, with the other three exemptions being battling against another beyblade, launching into a stadium, and assembly/disassembly of the beyblade with other parts in the series.

The main case of this is to allow Vanguard's inner plastic portions to be bent downwards to legally increase burst resistance, but this could very easily open up to other parts - messing with the mechanism of Greatest Raphael's halo gimmick to increase its same spin potential, stretching the Vanish blade out to increase its shock absorption capabilities, bending the tabs on Ignition', Hybrid, Generate, Shot, and Almight to increase burst resistance, and so on. 

Examples of Vanguard:
Normal: https://imgur.com/9KnxpbF (from zankye)
Bent: https://imgur.com/EdQHjCV (from zankye)
Videos of what it can accomplish: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjMmIp2MSKQ&list=PLpulVhDE83fPmgOXPXjKI8izg7G1mmGzV
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/680851523776937984/973980378509496320/20220511_164328_1.mp4
(from th!nk)

As cool as it is to see the Lightning L. Drago remake successfully fighting off Dynamite Battle competitive customs, I don't think it's worth bending the rules. 

So: should bending parts by hand count as illegal modification?

So this was a topic that I recently found myself asking a lot of people I know what their opinions are. Surprisingly the majority of people I asked didn't really care about it, and I found myself a little upset about that. This is definitely something that I am against. Most rules within the WBOs rulebooks are made to be as "Future Proof" as possible. Meaning when something was abused with 1 thing, they don't want something similar happening in the future just because it's a different part its happening with.

This section of the rulebook completely contradicts most of the other future proofed rules in the rulebook. You gave plenty of good examples of things that could happen, that will allow players to abuse this rule. I have also heard the excuse of "Well the WBBA allows it." That's great, and I push for a lot of the WBBA rules to be allowed and adapted to the WBO. However, when I try to do that I get a lot of people saying "Well we want to be our own thing, different from the WBBA." And both of these statements will come from the same people, which is my opinion is contradictory.

If we want to be the same as the WBBA and allow things like this modification then we should adapt most if not all things WBBA. If we want to be our own thing and have future proof rules then we should make them all future proof to the same capacity. Not pick and choose which ones we want future proof and which ones we don't.

(May. 15, 2022  7:31 PM)Abellia Wrote:

(May. 15, 2022  7:13 PM)CrisisCrusher07 Wrote: So this was a topic that I recently found myself asking a lot of people I know what their opinions are. Surprisingly the majority of people I asked didn't really care about it, and I found myself a little upset about that. This is definitely something that I am against. Most rules within the WBOs rulebooks are made to be as "Future Proof" as possible. Meaning when something was abused with 1 thing, they don't want something similar happening in the future just because it's a different part its happening with.

This section of the rulebook completely contradicts most of the other future proofed rules in the rulebook. You gave plenty of good examples of things that could happen, that will allow players to abuse this rule. I have also heard the excuse of "Well the WBBA allows it." That's great, and I push for a lot of the WBBA rules to be allowed and adapted to the WBO. However, when I try to do that I get a lot of people saying "Well we want to be our own thing, different from the WBBA." And both of these statements will come from the same people, which is my opinion is contradictory.

If we want to be the same as the WBBA and allow things like this modification then we should adapt most if not all things WBBA. If we want to be our own thing and have future proof rules then we should make them all future proof to the same capacity. Not pick and choose which ones we want future proof and which ones we don't.

This, absolutely. Hilariously, one of the responses I got when I suggested using the rule to abuse another part on the discord, they brought up a reference to another incident in the past where there was no specificity about the legal launch direction of a beyblade in the rulebook, and suggested that I would be punished similarly to that member if I tried to use the rule on another part. We can't pick and choose.

(May. 15, 2022  7:31 PM)Abellia Wrote:

(May. 15, 2022  7:13 PM)CrisisCrusher07 Wrote: So this was a topic that I recently found myself asking a lot of people I know what their opinions are. Surprisingly the majority of people I asked didn't really care about it, and I found myself a little upset about that. This is definitely something that I am against. Most rules within the WBOs rulebooks are made to be as "Future Proof" as possible. Meaning when something was abused with 1 thing, they don't want something similar happening in the future just because it's a different part its happening with.

This section of the rulebook completely contradicts most of the other future proofed rules in the rulebook. You gave plenty of good examples of things that could happen, that will allow players to abuse this rule. I have also heard the excuse of "Well the WBBA allows it." That's great, and I push for a lot of the WBBA rules to be allowed and adapted to the WBO. However, when I try to do that I get a lot of people saying "Well we want to be our own thing, different from the WBBA." And both of these statements will come from the same people, which is my opinion is contradictory.

If we want to be the same as the WBBA and allow things like this modification then we should adapt most if not all things WBBA. If we want to be our own thing and have future proof rules then we should make them all future proof to the same capacity. Not pick and choose which ones we want future proof and which ones we don't.

This, absolutely. Hilariously, one of the responses I got when I suggested using the rule to abuse another part on the discord, they brought up a reference to another incident in the past where there was no specificity about the legal launch direction of a beyblade in the rulebook, and suggested that I would be punished similarly to that member if I tried to use the rule on another part. We can't pick and choose.

(May. 15, 2022  8:31 PM)Shindog Wrote:

(May. 15, 2022  7:31 PM)Abellia Wrote: This, absolutely. Hilariously, one of the responses I got when I suggested using the rule to abuse another part on the discord, they brought up a reference to another incident in the past where there was no specificity about the legal launch direction of a beyblade in the rulebook, and suggested that I would be punished similarly to that member if I tried to use the rule on another part. We can't pick and choose.

I don’t have strong opinions on this and there is not an “I don’t have an opinion” option, so I won’t be voting.  But I would like to point out that if you follow this thread:

https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-LR-Beyblade-Burst-Launcher-Hack-Make-any-Beyblade-LR?pid=1760325#pid1760325

Ultimately, the disciplinary actions handed out was based on all the other rules that was broken to facilitate this “Hack” by an individual who should have been looked upon to help enforce the rules and fair play. Just want that to be clear.  It wasn’t that someone was disciplined for something that wasn’t clearly stated in the rulebooks.  I think that’s something that should be clarified.

(May. 16, 2022  1:47 AM)th!nk Wrote: To be clear, my videos of LLD KOing DB are single rounds, it still isn't easy to do, and putting my memes aside the combination is still balanced within BGT. Extremely strong yes, but so is Judgment. LLD can work against DB stuff due to its specific shape.

From a game balance perspective I'm not sure it's that bad. Unless we get another relevant part that is also affected like this, it is limited to a single format where it doesn't appear hugely deleterious.

From a consistency perspective... Perhaps it looks a bit odd to sit there forcefully bending the tabs on a disc.

(May. 16, 2022  2:34 AM)Abellia Wrote:

(May. 16, 2022  1:47 AM)th!nk Wrote: To be clear, my videos of LLD KOing DB are single rounds, it still isn't easy to do, and putting my memes aside the combination is still balanced within BGT. Extremely strong yes, but so is Judgment. LLD can work against DB stuff due to its specific shape.

From a game balance perspective I'm not sure it's that bad. Unless we get another relevant part that is also affected like this, it is limited to a single format where it doesn't appear hugely deleterious.

From a consistency perspective... Perhaps it looks a bit odd to sit there forcefully bending the tabs on a disc.

Oh, I can think of several relevant parts that are affected like this. I hope I don't get the opportunity to abuse them.

(May. 16, 2022  2:40 AM)th!nk Wrote:

(May. 16, 2022  2:34 AM)Abellia Wrote: Oh, I can think of several relevant parts that are affected like this. I hope I don't get the opportunity to abuse them.

People believe with their eyes, perhaps it is something you should abuse to make the point?

(May. 16, 2022  5:35 PM)Abellia Wrote: A basic list of potentially abusable parts and how to abuse them:
Greatest Raphael: Abusable by tampering with halo mechanisms in order to keep the halo from ever coming up, preserving the higher outwards weight distribution of the initial state of the layer.
Vanish blade: Abusable by intentionally deforming the blade to amplify its characteristics – mainly, stretching out the “pockets” of the blade to increase the shock absorption capabilities.
All discs, but mostly the fused disc drivers: Abusable by bending the tabs outwards to make contact with either the layer or to increase contact with burst stoppers on existing parts, i.e. Judgement. Obviously much easier with fused disc drivers than with regular discs with metal tabs, but still possible and still cause for concern.
Drivers: Abusable by using your hands to stretch out the spring. No rules currently disqualify the disassembly and reassembly of parts from being used in WBO events (and frankly I think it’s stupid that we have to think about such a rule to prevent such blatant cheating) and thus, it is legal to disassemble a driver, pull out the string to increase burst resistance, and reassemble the driver so long as no damage is done to the casing or the rivets of the driver. A bit of a stretch for whether or not someone would go to the effort, but absolutely doable and one of the most obnoxious ways to abuse the rule.
Hasbro layers: “The slopes on Hasbro Energy Layers that have played with Takara-Tomy Drivers inevitably are damaged, increasing their burst resistance illegally.” This says nothing about pressing into the plastic on Hasbro energy layers with your nails to create the same effect.
Infinite lock layer system layers: Similar to Hasbro energy layers, you can decrease the frequency of their staggers by using your hands to create unevenness on the slopes of the layer.
I’m sure there are many other smaller examples that I have not thought of. It’s also worth mentioning that these are the examples for just Burst. Fundamentally, the rule's gotta go, as funny as LLD is.

(May. 31, 2022  2:41 AM)Abellia Wrote: I would like to add a new part to this: S gear may apparently be abusable in the opposite way from Vanguard, where the gear pushes into the layer and makes the driver compress further as a result rather than the tabs pressing into the driver.

(May. 31, 2022  7:59 AM)shrim Wrote: I think it should be banned but some stuff should be allowed, I think bent vanguard is ok, bans shouldn't be secular in nature but ratheer moe specific in my opinion

(May. 31, 2022  7:44 AM)MagikHorse Wrote:

(May. 31, 2022  2:41 AM)Abellia Wrote: I would like to add a new part to this: S gear may apparently be abusable in the opposite way from Vanguard, where the gear pushes into the layer and makes the driver compress further as a result rather than the tabs pressing into the driver.

If anything this pushes the driver and the driver's locking cap further away from the teeth, resulting in less tooth contact and therefore reduced burst resistance. In fact, I sometimes pull downwards on the disk like that to disassemble beys more easily and reduce tooth wear. This isn't just not abuse, it's actively worsening your combination's burst resistance to attempt this unless the friction of the S Gear itself on the layer makes up for that which is possibly feasible... except I don't think this is actually possible at all.

The S Gear is textured in a way where the gaps in it act as reinforcement points, preventing it from being misshapen past a certain point. Vanguard's centerpiece doesn't have any kind of reinforcement so it can be bent, S Gear is just too heavily reinforced to be bent by hand enough to actually pull this effect off. You can flex it just about enough to actually add or remove it from the disk, but not any more than that. Anything further is either going to take weightlifter type strength to accomplish, make the gear fit unusually on the disk, or simply break the S Gear entirely.

Let's try to keep to the actually realistic methods of modification, because this just isn't reasonable to do at all, by hand or not.

(May. 31, 2022  4:30 PM)Abellia Wrote: What? The tabs on bentguard push into the driver as well, making the spring compress further. Bentxus+s works the same way, making the driver compress further. Believe me when I say, it works. I will make no comment on whether or not is is possible.

(May. 31, 2022  5:45 PM)MagikHorse Wrote:

(May. 31, 2022  4:30 PM)Abellia Wrote: What? The tabs on bentguard push into the driver as well, making the spring compress further. Bentxus+s works the same way, making the driver compress further. Believe me when I say, it works. I will make no comment on whether or not is is possible.

I don't think you understand at all why Vanbent works. How much the driver spring is compressed is meaningless when the body of the driver is being pushed further downward, and therefore you can actually touch less of the teeth. Spring compression is not what makes it tighter, the spring really can't go much further down anyways before it hits its maximum limit. It's direct disk-on-layer friction and pressure from the tabs pushing the entire disk upward that makes Vanbent so resistant to budging. It's all Vanguard's flat surface suddenly becoming a pancake topped by a layer that has proven so powerful.

Nexus+S would have to bend enough for it to catch on the layer to accomplish this, wouldn't be able to free-spin if it did and thus would only work for attack, and is still probably too tough to actually bend enough to accomplish this. It's not reasonably possible, and it's not worth trying to break the game with it even if it is.

Please, stop trying to suggest that people try to abuse a rule just because it's not well thought out or future proofed. That's going to be less healthy for the community than the bad rule itself, and your posts are starting to turn into an idea board on how to exploit it. Time will see it changed. Let that happen naturally.

(May. 15, 2022  6:43 PM)Abellia Wrote: Currently in the rulebooks, there is a subsection under banned Physical Modifications exempting "Displacement of part components that have to give to them by hand."

(Jun. 01, 2022  3:41 PM)Mikeorix Wrote:

(May. 15, 2022  6:43 PM)Abellia Wrote: Currently in the rulebooks, there is a subsection under banned Physical Modifications exempting "Displacement of part components that have to give to them by hand."

What is the initial intent behind this rule?  Can anyone chime in here.  I could see this rule written to prevent someone's part being banned for small variations. Like rubber bits on layers.