World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc.
Proposal: Make M4D Banlist Default instead of Ranked Clauses - Printable Version

+- 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: Proposal: Make M4D Banlist Default instead of Ranked Clauses (/Thread-Proposal-Make-M4D-Banlist-Default-instead-of-Ranked-Clauses)

Proposal: Make M4D Banlist Default instead of Ranked Clauses - KIO - Apr. 20, 2024

Since Metal Fight 4D (M4D) became a Ranked Format last June, the experimental banlist was converted into RECOMMENDED Ranked Clauses.

Ranked Clauses Guide Wrote:Banlist Variation: Diablo BD145 Ban
  • The following Metal Wheel and Track combination may not be used in this tournament: Diablo BD145
  • Both parts may still be used independently of each other.
Banlist Variation: Duo Ban
  • The following Metal Wheel may not be used in this tournament: Duo (4D)
Banlist Variation: Rubber Defense Flat Ban
  • The following Bottom may not be used in this tournament: RDF
Banlist Variation: Elevator 230 Ban
  • The following Track may not be used in this tournament: E230

The rationale was to experiment with the idea of giving Organizers more freedom and control over local banlists, and that the "invisible hand" of the community would direct towards "preferred" methods of play without overrreach from the Organized Play team.

From the events played, it seems that the "preferred" methods of play have trended towards these Ranked Clauses being active. My proposal is therefore to make this the default banlist. This would:
  • Remove an extra step for most Organizers playing M4D.
  • Makes the banlist more clear to players and new M4D hosts.
  • Reaffirm the original spirit of the format.
My general view on Ranked Clauses in general is that whatever is default should be what the WBO "recommends", and is most accessible. Any deviation from the default "recommendation" should be Ranked Clauses that give Organizers the freedom to mold local metas away from the "recommended" ruleset.

RE: Proposal: Make M4D Banlist Default instead of Ranked Clauses - Shindog - Apr. 20, 2024

The 3 most recent events.  The three that have posted in the winning combo thread have the following ban lists

1) RDF, E230 banned
2) RDF, E230, Diablos+BD145, Duo banned
3) no ranked clause (basically, no synchrome)

(And the 4D event before these 3 were in Sept of 2023, so almost a 1/2 year gap. That event banned flash, diablo and etc…. It really doesn’t feel like there is much of a consensus….)

In this order.  

I don’t really see that there is such a strong consensus at this point.  In my view, the most accessible is actually when the maximum number of parts are allowed to be used.  The easiest to understand for 4D is simply, “no synchrome.”  So I believe the current 4D ban list of “no synchrome” is the most accessible and easiest to understand.  Once a region get into a format more, they can certainly tweak to their liking with ranked clause. The most accessible both in terms of playable parts and simplicity of the rules may not be what some local communities see as being the most competitive.  That is totally fine, and can be addressed locally with clauses.

RE: Proposal: Make M4D Banlist Default instead of Ranked Clauses - KIO - Apr. 20, 2024

For data purposes, since M4D became Ranked and Organizers were given the options to use Ranked Clauses as they see fit, the events have looked like this, in order:

There were 7 tournaments held during the experimental period where these Clauses didn't exist (and thus Organizers had no choice but to use all Clauses), so I didn't include them in the dataset. So at least when given the option, all but 2 tournaments opted to use all Clauses, where 1 used two Clauses (RDF, E230) and 1 used all Clauses plus some extra bans. So to me, based on the dataset we have right now, it seems that most Organizers who are playing the format have chosen not to deviate from the banlist established by the original format proposal during the experimental period (i.e. all Clauses used).

Quote:In my view, the most accessible is actually when the maximum number of parts are allowed to be used.  The easiest to understand for 4D is simply, “no synchrome.”  So I believe the current 4D ban list of “no synchrome” is the most accessible and easiest to understand.

This is fair, there are folks in Vancouver that have the same philosophy about other formats' banlists. Based on the events hosted however, it just seems sensible to include the Clauses as the default. My thinking is a new Organizer or player may read the M4D rulebook as-is now, and interpret 0 Clauses as how the M4D format is "normally" played, when historically the format hasn't ever been played like that (except for potentially that 1 event). Regions should start off with what is actually being played (all Clauses used) and adjust accordingly from there. We sort of see this in Maryland, where they worked off of all Clauses used (or "the regular 4D banlist") as a base, and added bans.

RE: Proposal: Make M4D Banlist Default instead of Ranked Clauses - Shindog - Apr. 20, 2024

I think the format is currently not played much, and it does look like ppl started trying the recommended ban list first, and then started trying different things?

Also, the recommended clauses right now deviate from the bans during the experimental period slightly.

I do agree if we put a recommended ban list or a ban list out there, ppl are more likely to try that first if a community is new to a format. This makes perfect sense.  So if people have the ability to try for themselves all the parts, they can see for themselves pretty quickly.  That could lead to people finding a ruleset that works well for them locally, resulting in a legacy format seeing more play. I do not believe the current WBO M4D default rules is unbalanced. The argument is that more parts will see use if the bans are in place. I also don’t think that is true, actually, how do we even know?