WBO Organized Play Official Rules & Discussion - 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: WBO Organized Play Official Rules & Discussion (/Thread-WBO-Organized-Play-Official-Rules-Discussion) |
RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Cake - Jun. 04, 2017 I would prefer if the finals were double elimination, because the finals are effectively guaranteed to be some of the most competitive, exciting, and generally fun matches in the event; providing everyone involved with more opportunities to compete and face off against other top bladers in a competitive, strategic format would be fantastic. Obviously there are time concerns, given how Deck Format takes much longer than regular matches, but I feel like the finals, especially Deck Format, are much more entertaining both to play and to watch. Single elimination finals with 8 finalists takes only 4 rounds while double elimination takes 7 or 8, so it's definitely a lot more time consuming, but it's unfortunate that even the top 4 bladers in an 8-person final only play 3 - 4 rounds of Deck Format at the end of the whole tournament... RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Dark_Mousy - Jun. 04, 2017 It would be a bit more fun if Deck Finals were double elimination. But as Kei said earlier it does take more skillful player to win/navigate these finals. And most games(Pokémon, YGO, Magic Etc) do have Single Elimination finals. The main thing I love about it is it does save time. But I do see everyone's point about single elimination vs Double Elimination. As of right now I feel its okay the way it is right now. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Mstubbs88 - Jun. 05, 2017 I feel double elim in finals is redundant and not needed. If you make it to the finals, you shouldnt need a 2nd chance to redeem yourself. If you lose, the other player just performed better and was more prepared. Also, double elim in a way punishes those who do, do well and prepare well before an event RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - FIREFIRE CPB - Jun. 05, 2017 Well first of all, thanks @[Kei] for such a beautiful explanation of why we should keep Deck Rotation + Single Elimination as it is. It really relieved me and I'm now confident, WBO is in safe hands :) (well I'm not saying I was doubting it wasn't, somethings such as less activity, lack of test and things made me worry since last few days). Every thing has applied recently is very well thought and I agree 100% with these rule changes now and all my doubts are cleared ;). So moving to back to my MFB event's DR Format thought. Even I first thought it might not go well with MFB and other formats, when I played it, I felt pretty fun. Like for example, when I and JKsiddh was battling for 3rd spot at My Way or Highway Ltd's finals. Due to revail your combo to loser, I was bit worried how I will win (might lose my streak of placing at LTD lol) but then I planned to keep 1 combo that safely counter what all he might use and make very difficult to Counter. So along with my Flame 230CS and Vulcan GB145RF, I picked a very weird combo, Scythe Esscorpio T125BSF against his Earth 230CS, Meteo BD and Gravity LW195MF. And my plan worked, I confused him by using it time when I had to show my combo (non reply) and won as he didn't know what id actually does (kinda destablizer that KO lol) and won rest by letting him win some round and seeing his combo. See, I learned something new and my skills improved which is how a finals should do. It let me use my full skills and get win + single Elimination helped me secure me for 2nd place after a win (which might happened at last few events too but due to round robin was for finals that time, I got stuck in tiebreaker and came 3rd in end) and that's how I got 1st place secured at STD event (reason I came 3rd in LTD was I kinda intentionally picked risky combo + launch badly as I didn't wanted to get 2 gold face at 1 event that time lol). Though it always don't go in my way, as in The BeyDay FIRESTORM II's LTD Semifinals, we made agreement with all 4 finalist to use only 1 combo as to save time and due to that I picked Gravity DF105FB (well tbh because I didn't had MF and BD near me. Eurekaboy was sharing but I can't use his parts again him lol) (and my Launch was off that day so Attack was way too risky) and despite able to KO, I got 2 wall save and my DF105 broke (lol) and no one had it. So I got to 3rd place lol (Beating AaryanBITW 's Flame 230MB by Scythe Cancer BD). But afterall point is it was fun and helps to get fullest of event + making Casual and New Member bladers to push a bit harder and devolop better skills and learn more as well as having fun = gaining more interest in event of members = more competition = overall more exciting and fun event = aiding to Community overall by gaining new regular members and retaining old members. It might be bit concern for player who might want to retain there position (no offence and not pointing at anyone, just a general example from my own feeling :).) as they might need to work harder to retain then position but if you see, while trying to win, you will learn and improve your skill = helping you in future to able to win as you are improved. About revailing your deck thing, I'm sure you can overcome it by picking safer and welll rounded combos as well as making a good strategy. And it's not like he will opponent will change its bey after seeing your deck so if your deck is good enough you can win. Though like 1234beyblade mentioned, it might give player with more points a advantage, but you still win by keeping a hard counter Combo. But I still feel Committee may rethink on showing what you might use as without it will be fair for bkader with lower score too (like 4-0 situation). Edit:- btw if it worths mentioning. In STD semi-finals and finals of My Way or Highway, I picked 3 combos yet used only 1 as both time Balro MF and Girago Dragoon BD145RDF did the job against entire deck of Eurekaboy and HarryAlchemist. In finals of both My Way or Highway and BeyDay FIRESTORM II LTD, Eurekaboy used Flame 230B only again' ashton onl RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - JesseObre - Jun. 05, 2017 From experience of this tournament, I think double elimination is fair. Yea it sucks losing in the first round and being eliminated, but moral is, you need experience to handle deck format, and that's why we have tournaments. The main goal is to be a competitive community who are skilled with different aspects and decision making choices. I think MFB deck format worked perfectly. I had no issues with it. It was fairly run perfect. When dealing with MFB, it gave us a better chance at redeeming ourselves in battles as MFB is very one pick can mess your whole matchup. With deck, the worries with that are all away, and you create a balanced 3 combos that you choose to counter each of your opponents moves. I lost in the first round, of each deck format finals. Did it suck getting booted out, yes, but in reality, this made it more easier to determine placings. The double elimination format helps by making finals more brief and to the point. We don't want a round robin deck finals do we? Or you'll be stuck there till Anime North 2018 hahaha. In conclusion, I say deck format in finals is fine, also double elimination, and if you disagree, you're ludicrous. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Mstubbs88 - Jun. 05, 2017 (Jun. 05, 2017 5:21 AM)JesseObre Wrote: From experience of this tournament, I think double elimination is fair. Yea it sucks losing in the first round and being eliminated, but moral is, you need experience to handle deck format, and that's why we have tournaments. The main goal is to be a competitive community who are skilled with different aspects and decision making choices. I think MFB deck format worked perfectly. I had no issues with it. It was fairly run perfect. When dealing with MFB, it gave us a better chance at redeeming ourselves in battles as MFB is very one pick can mess your whole matchup. With deck, the worries with that are all away, and you create a balanced 3 combos that you choose to counter each of your opponents moves. I lost in the first round, of each deck format finals. Did it suck getting booted out, yes, but in reality, this made it more easier to determine placings. The double elimination format helps by making finals more brief and to the point. We don't want a round robin deck finals do we? Or you'll be stuck there till Anime North 2018 hahaha. In conclusion, I say deck format in finals is fine, also double elimination, and if you disagree, you're ludicrous. Do you mean single elimination?? It sounds like you meant single but wrote double. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Ultra - Jun. 05, 2017 (Jun. 04, 2017 8:08 PM)Cake Wrote: I would prefer if the finals were double elimination, because the finals are effectively guaranteed to be some of the most competitive, exciting, and generally fun matches in the event; providing everyone involved with more opportunities to compete and face off against other top bladers in a competitive, strategic format would be fantastic. Obviously there are time concerns, given how Deck Format takes much longer than regular matches, but I feel like the finals, especially Deck Format, are much more entertaining both to play and to watch. Single elimination finals with 8 finalists takes only 4 rounds while double elimination takes 7 or 8, so it's definitely a lot more time consuming, but it's unfortunate that even the top 4 bladers in an 8-person final only play 3 - 4 rounds of Deck Format at the end of the whole tournament...That was the other part that I didn't like. I missed out on playing one of the finalists because I was relegated to third/fourth but even if I hadn't like you say you wouldn't get to play everyone. It would be nice to play against everyone in the finals instead of just most of some of them. It's even worse when you have an 8 player finals instead of the 4 player one like we had. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Kai-V - Jun. 05, 2017 You also have to remember that Deck Format, especially in a highly competitive environment, takes a lot longer than a normal match... If we had had to do almost twice as many battles at Beyblade North 2017 in the finals, with the way it was decided to hold only one match at a time, we would have never finished... But it would make sense to do Double Elimination for potentially anything but the Swiss format, anything but huge tournaments. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Ultra - Jun. 05, 2017 (Jun. 05, 2017 3:09 PM)Kai-V Wrote: You also have to remember that Deck Format, especially in a highly competitive environment, takes a lot longer than a normal match... If we had had to do almost twice as many battles at Beyblade North 2017 in the finals, with the way it was decided to hold only one match at a time, we would have never finished... Well I mean I did mention limiting the amount of finalists that go through to 4 which as I also said would be make it hard (well harder) like Kei wants it to be. I'll wait for Kei's replies to my responses but i'm not really optimistic. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - byonicboy - Jun. 06, 2017 (Jun. 04, 2017 6:32 PM)Kei Wrote:My thoughts on the Beyblade metal fight on the Sunday of AnimeNorth was a great experience it was my first real tournament and I had great experience and was very happy with the out come. I think the deck format was a little confusing at first but after the first round I understood how it worked. I only came with one beyblade but i was able to borrow a few for the mandatory 3 needed for deck format. I was really tempted to just use my beyblade but once I saw how my opponents beyblade worked I was able to play around it and try and counter it. I did win 2 rounds (I think) because I was able to play around my opponents beyblades. This was my first tournament and I think deck format was a very fair way to play. If i knew more about the beyblades I borrowed i would think i would of had a better chance agents my opponent. Making it to final 8 in my first tournament I am very happy with and everyone there was so nice and helpful, if only I put myself out there more. (Sorry if i rambled i hope this helped)(Jun. 04, 2017 2:45 PM)Kai-V Wrote: Do we allow clear nail polish for Burst Beyblades though? We should not, because the rule has always been clear in Burst that no repaint was legal. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Mstubbs88 - Jun. 06, 2017 (Jun. 05, 2017 7:36 PM)Ultra Wrote:(Jun. 05, 2017 3:09 PM)Kai-V Wrote: You also have to remember that Deck Format, especially in a highly competitive environment, takes a lot longer than a normal match... If we had had to do almost twice as many battles at Beyblade North 2017 in the finals, with the way it was decided to hold only one match at a time, we would have never finished... Top 8 is just part of swiss. If it went to more (atleast in other games) it goes into top 16, 32, and 48. The lowest its set for is 8. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Kei - Jun. 06, 2017 (Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: Uh well Toronto isn't the only community. I mean as far as I can see since deck format has been introduced you guys haven't really asked how everyone feels about it. Of course we're not! As I previously alluded to, we did have a couple extremely in-depth discussions (this one, and originally this one) about it last year open to the community as we were formulating the rules and experimenting with different rulesets in real tournaments over the course of four or five months (August-December 2016). Not to mention the thread Brad originally made about Deck Rotation. So, by the time we finalized the ruleset, we had already completed a fairly extensive research and experimentation process with the help and feedback of the entire community in real events. There have been a few complaints issued here and there like yours and Wombat's, but beyond my experience with the Toronto community in general, based on FIREFIRE CPB's post above about things in India and things I've heard from several UK members, the overall reception in those areas of the current ruleset is positive. But in any case, we're here now talking about it! It seems more appropriate to have this discussion now than say, two months after the rules were implemented and only a few events had been played. Last year in our discussion thread I even said after we had gone through three or four versions of the rules that: Kei Wrote:... at this point it is better for us to decide on something knowing that it is credible and fair to be used in ranked tournaments so that we can move forward and then later on consider perhaps making tweaks once the entire community has had a chance to use it in some real ranked tournaments for some time. (Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: I don't really think it would affect the legitimacy of the rankings that much. Honestly it's probably going to be same people up there whether you have deck finals or not. Personally I don't find it more fun. I enjoyed the originals finals and I didn't really see anything wrong with it. "That much". Well, then you acknowledge still would unfortunately have an effect ultimately ... You're right that it would be the same people whether it's Deck Finals or not; but that isn't justification for scrapping Deck Format or making it optional. Even if the same people make the finals, playing using the old method won't challenge those players in the same way. What did you enjoy about the old way we did finals? It sounds to me like a lot of what you don't like about the current rules is: 1. Not having a second chance (although if you lose in the first round of a 4 player final or the second round of an 8 player final you do have a "second chance" in the form of the 3rd/4th place match). 2. Not being able to play all of the top players. 3. The level of certainty offered by Deck Format conflicting with your excitement for uncertainty. There's so many things to consider here. As others have stated, most competitive gaming events conduct their finals in a Single Elimination style; if you make it to the finals, you should expect to have a tough road ahead of you. You should be guaranteed very little from the outset. The first stage of our events is where more forgiveness exists because of the nature of the people involved with it (all players, both skilled/unskilled or new/veteran), and the nature of the battles being played (double blind); it's more important for forgiveness to exist in that stage for the sake of everybody. Nobody wants to lose just one battle and be eliminated from the entire event in the beginning because they made one wrong choice, but everybody can understand it becoming much more difficult and demanding in the finals. Losing a battle in Deck Format would be as a result of a series of wrong choices more so than a single wrong choice. Forgiveness is also a reason why we allow for eight finalists in our larger events and why four player finals as you've suggested wouldn't work. If we took four players into the finals of our events, Swiss Format events especially would become absolutely brutal in the first stage. Even Wombat mentioned in one of his previous posts that a four player top cut for large Swiss events would mean that a first round loss would likely place you outside the top four even if you ended up X-1 because your Bucholz score would probably never match the Bucholz of other X-1's who won in the first round. At BEYBLADE NORTH 2016 we took a top four cut from around 36 players (since we had not developed hard rules at that point for how many finalists to take for every situation), and there was probably like six or seven 4-2 players just behind the 5-1's. This decision was objectively valid, but controversial and in retrospect, it would have been fairer to take eight finalists (if we had also introduced the Single Elimination format at that point). This was a good example that we looked at when developing the new rules last year. However, while eight finalists makes a lot of sense for larger events, taking eight finalists for events with 16 or less participants (which is the current threshold between 4 vs 8 finalists) is too forgiving. 50% or more of participants should not be given a spot in the finals of an event. And in any tournament size, using eight finalists and doing double elimination Deck Format would take far too long as others have mentioned. The current ruleset was all about finding a balance between being forgiving to all players by not demanding perfection to reach the finals and then–justifiably so–being demanding of our best players that do reach the finals. It's difficult to find somewhere that sits between the decisions we have made at this point because I feel like we were able to walk that line and craft a set of rules that is very fair and logical. The rules allow for some level of forgiveness in the first stage, but become more demanding upon reaching the finals. This seems perfectly logical, does it not? Should the finals be easy? Do finalists deserve a second or third chance in the finals when they get defeated by someone in a skill-intensive format like Deck (note: I don't meant to say the first stage doesn't involve "skill" because it certainly does, but Deck Format challenges players in deeper/different ways) who was better prepared or played better than them? And I certainly understand your desire to play everyone in the finals; I'd love to play against all of the top players too, but you have to also consider the rankings here. If all of the top/highly-ranked players get to constantly play each other in the finals of events to an excessive point (where single elimination is enough, and round robin or double elimination is excessive), it becomes a lot easier for them to more quickly segregate themselves at the top of the rankings because they will continue trading points with each other over and over again. Pitting players of all skill levels more frequently against a wider range of opponents in terms of ranking allows for a more accurate leaderboard over time. One issue with the old method of round robin finals as well was tiebreaks; this only exasperated the above issue because our solution for breaking them was: more battles haha. This makes the tournaments longer too. In our new rules tiebreak battles are an absolute last resort and are uncommon, and for our finals, single elimination ensures there's no possible way of a tiebreak happening (since you wouldn't want the winner of a tournament determined based on the head-to-head tiebreaker, for example). (Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: This is supposed to be a fun hobby. When you make it too difficult that kind of takes away an element of that (to me anyway). This is a really tricky thing for me to respond to because it's difficult for me to know precisely what you mean by "fun". We're talking about competitive tournaments here. Competing in tournaments and everything that comes with them are the biggest aspect of the Beyblade hobby which makes it "fun" to me. I find the challenge of Deck Format to be "fun". I find it to be "fun" because of the different type of effort, knowledge and skill involved compared to the first stage of our events. I find both winning and losing in a Single Elimination Deck Format final to still be "fun" because I enjoy the process of getting there, respect the skill it takes to advance, and the format. Even if I'm disappointed or frustrated in the moment after a loss, I feel ultimately that any of my losses rests more on my own shoulders than anything or anyone else. It's "fun" to try and fight my way to the top, knowing how difficult it is to accomplish. (Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: I don't really have any great rebuttal to this other I like not knowing what the matchup is going to be. That's a large part of the excitement for me. Aren't you glad the bulk of our events cater to your preference, then? (Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: Also just thought of another idea: Would you consider the option of not revealing you decks? Yeah, I mean this was something which was debated in our discussion last year. I had actually proposed going back to hidden decks in my final proposal, but was convinced otherwise by Cake and Wombat in their posts that followed. The cost of hidden decks is quite high for Deck Format because it makes it much more difficult for both players to formulate strategies and plan ahead, which is part of what makes Deck Format great. If I were to consider any change personally, it would perhaps be to change the rules so that the winner doesn't have to show the combo they are switching to if they decide to switch after winning a round (assuming the loser declines a rematch). Wombat I believe explained why he prefers this in the discussion thread. But even that I'm not sure is necessary. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Mstubbs88 - Jun. 06, 2017 (Jun. 06, 2017 4:23 AM)Kei Wrote:(Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: Uh well Toronto isn't the only community. I mean as far as I can see since deck format has been introduced you guys haven't really asked how everyone feels about it. Kei, reading this has earned a great deal of respect from me as a member and (hopfully) a future organizer. Everything you said is 100% correct. Ive played other games competetively and being in the top is NO cake walk. Theres a reason its the "top". I love how you referenced the importance of a top 8 in larger events and a top 4 for smaller one due to the bucholz scoring system. That's a very common thing in yugioh and it really helps you in competetive play (in anything) to understand when losing is absolutely awful to do and even who you lose to is important. If you go 4-1 and only lose to the undefeated even in the first round, you should be in like 6th place i think. (Thus getting you into top 8) I understand wanting to play everyone, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from having "mock" or "what if" battles with the people you didnt get to play after the tournament. Heck, thats what my friend (Thebeadedimp) and i did as soon as we got back. He placed 2nd and i 3rd in "diamond is unburstable" and we were curious how things may have been different if we had been in the same bracket and played. Fun fact? I wouldve atleast had 2nd bc i woulda beat him. I probably still wouldnt have beat AngryFace due to me not having a counter to Odin bc i had never played when he was relevant. Also, me losing to Angry WAS MY OWN FAULT i basically handed him 3 of the 5 points he needed, due to 2 launches of my bey flinging itself out and my own inexperience against Odin. Sorry for my rant/tangent but i feel things are as fair as theyre going to get. Just my 2 cents... Or more i guess... Lol RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - FIREFIRE CPB - Jun. 06, 2017 (Jun. 06, 2017 4:23 AM)Kei Wrote:(Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: Also just thought of another idea: Would you consider the option of not revealing you decks? Yes, even I think that would be good idea. I mean it would also balance out issue of 4-0 score (someone can intentionally lose to gain advantage and win easily). Though it will change entire way of making strategy a bit to a complete guessing game. But it would be bit more fair for both one winning with higher score and one is less on score and give chance for less scored one to win. Edit:- btw, I wasn't saying I'm worried about Committee being inefficient, but rather worried overall about WBO's future which isn't case anymore. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Beylon - Jun. 17, 2017 (Jun. 06, 2017 4:23 AM)Kei Wrote: Forgiveness is also a reason why we allow for eight finalists in our larger events and why four player finals as you've suggested wouldn't work. If we took four players into the finals of our events, Swiss Format events especially would become absolutely brutal in the first stage. Even Wombat mentioned in one of his previous posts that a four player top cut for large Swiss events would mean that a first round loss would likely place you outside the top four even if you ended up X-1 because your Bucholz score would probably never match the Bucholz of other X-1's who won in the first round. This is so colossally brutal in itself that 4UP finals are basically the only addition I'd actually enjoy seeing in Deck. Which is precisely why I never commented about points-scoring and finals-organisation during the testing phase... It would have been ubernuts if I'd got my way. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - FIREFIRE CPB - Jun. 22, 2017 Quick BeyQuestion. Is it madatory to add winning combos to results as well? I mean we post in WC thread too so whats need of posting at both places? Thanks in advance RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Kai-V - Jun. 22, 2017 (Jun. 22, 2017 12:28 AM)FIREFIRE CPB Wrote: Quick BeyQuestion. Is it madatory to add winning combos to results as well? I mean we post in WC thread too so whats need of posting at both places? Because it actually makes more sense to have everything related to one event be posted in that tournament's topic hah. For instance, if you want to know what the winning combinations were specifically for the Hasbro-only Burst formats hosted in Toronto recently, then you can find exactly those threads instead of searching among many pages, many tournaments all around the world and reactions to those posts. Or, also, if you are traveling to a new region, you want to see exactly that area's last tournament's combinations. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Kei - Jun. 25, 2017 (Jun. 22, 2017 12:42 AM)Kai-V Wrote:(Jun. 22, 2017 12:28 AM)FIREFIRE CPB Wrote: Quick BeyQuestion. Is it madatory to add winning combos to results as well? I mean we post in WC thread too so whats need of posting at both places? @[FIREFIRE CPB] To add on to this, another very important reason for it is to make addition of the information to the WBO Organized Play - Public Tournament Data Archive much quicker. If you look at the archive you'll see that the sheets for the tournament information and the sheets for the Winning Combos are set up exactly like the results spreadsheet template, so it's easy to copy + paste from the results to our archive. We haven't been keeping the archive up to date, but you will be hearing more about this soon. The Winning Combinations thread itself is more for providing an area to discuss those combos than anything else. The archive and posting them in the event pages via the results spreadsheet link make things easier to document and for people to find when they need to find them just for the sake of seeing the information. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Kei - Aug. 15, 2017 @[1234beyblade], @[~Mana~], @[Kai-V] Continuing the discussion from: https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-WBO-Organized-Play-Rule-Updates-August-2017-%E2%80%93-mG-God-Chip-Restrictions-More (Aug. 14, 2017 9:35 PM)1234beyblade Wrote: Ok so I know these rules just came out but I would like to propose a new rule to add. (Aug. 14, 2017 9:51 PM)Kai-V Wrote:(Aug. 14, 2017 9:35 PM)1234beyblade Wrote: Ok so I know these rules just came out but I would like to propose a new rule to add. (Aug. 14, 2017 11:02 PM)1234beyblade Wrote: hmm, I think we based the bounce back in off the walls like ZRG kinda, where it goes into the pocket but comes back in immediately. In the BB-10 the KO is obviously very clear and I think we just pushed off that first rule you mentioned to be BB-10 only. So basically once the driver leaves that second ridge into the pocket from the Standard Type Beystadium it's a KO regardless if it's a big hit with a lot of speed that causes it to bounce back into play immediately? (Aug. 14, 2017 11:41 PM)~Mana~ Wrote: "It must therefore immediately bounce back into the stadium, otherwise it is deemed out of play" Yeah, our current rulebooks were simplified to state: Quote:Knocked-Out The key distinction is "cannot return". The change I therefore feel we should make is the removal of that phrase; if the entire Beyblade exits the main play area, it should be considered a KO. Might be some stadium/format specific rulings we need to look at if we were to make this change, but for Burst I think instances where a Beyblade hits the back wall and bounces back in would be considered KOs for the Beyblade that knocked them out. The only exception I might be willing to make is if a Beyblade hits the back wall in an exit immediately at the start of a match and then bounces back in before making contact with the opposing Beyblade ... if we want to be forgiving, that is. In any case, I really feel like this would be a positive change for Burst Format where Attack already feels under powered generally speaking. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - ThaKingTai - Sep. 21, 2017 I feel as thought the more changing in the God Series isn't being used to its fullest potential because of the rule that says you can not change the mode if you must take apart the top. The main issues that I've seen were that it takes time and it's essentially having two different beys. I understand that changing modes in singles would be too much, but I do have a proposition or two that I think would work well in Deck Format: 1: Allow the Blader to be able to change modes but with the catch that they are not allowed to have a third bey. The judge must be the one to change the mode and it must be announced beforehand. 2: Allow the Blader to have the same Layer, but the Layer must be is the other mode. The rest of the parts must be completely different from the other combination with the same Layer I think that this may still need some revision, but it's a rule that I think would be good to implement. Sometimes, some modes work better than others, and I think that it should be up to the players' discretion to decide that. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Kei - Sep. 22, 2017 It's an interesting suggestion, and actually Sniper suggested something similar to me recently. I think his idea was to allow one mode change per Deck Format match. The rule about no mode changing is derived from TAKARA-TOMY's rules, but obviously we've diverged with our interpretation of Deck Format, so we might be able to do the same here. I do think that for other formats like MFB we would not consider this at all because it takes so long to assemble those Beyblades, but the construction of Burst is simple enough that it might be worth considering fully the benefits of being able to change modes within a Deck Format match. I'm kind of neutral on the suggestion right now, so I'd be curious to hear more opinions and examples of how it could be used to enhance strategy in Deck Format matches, and how the rule could be implemented (what restrictions would there be). RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Beylon - Sep. 22, 2017 Aside from TT's rules, and the time-factor in MFB, what is the theory behind disallowing changes? I'd have assumed the whole point of these designs was to gain an innovative advantage in locked-in scenarios just like Deck. If not this, what else is the point of mode changes compared to just using different parts? I'd support infinite mode changes in Deck. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Achi-baba - Sep. 22, 2017 I was just about to talk to a Committee member about a similar proposal for deck format. I have made a combo that can beat one type of top tier bey in one mode and put up a good fight with another top tier combo in the other. But in deck format, I can't predict what most of my opponents are going to use in their deck, or if they'll use both combos. I was going to suggest that we could at the very least be able to chose our mode after seeing our opponents deck. It's also been suggested that mode changes be allowed after your bey bursts. Even if someone tries to intentionally self burst to change their mode, they'll have to give up anywhere from 2-4 points, based on that point in the tournament, putting them at a near loss just to be able to get a supposed advantage. The risk vs reward adds more dimension to competitive play. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Kei - Sep. 26, 2017 (Sep. 22, 2017 3:06 AM)Beylon Wrote: Aside from TT's rules, and the time-factor in MFB, what is the theory behind disallowing changes? I'd have assumed the whole point of these designs was to gain an innovative advantage in locked-in scenarios just like Deck. If not this, what else is the point of mode changes compared to just using different parts? It's part of the decision-making process you have to go through before each battle; allowing mode changes for parts that require disassembly makes this process more forgiving. The question is whether we want to be forgiving or not. I could pick Legend Spriggan knowing it does well against almost everything in right-spin, but then end up playing Drain Fafnir, where lS needs to be in left-spin to be effective. Making the call to go right-spin because it deals with most opponents, or taking the risk of going left-spin if you think your opponent will use dF is just one other dimension someone needs to consider when deciding whether and how to use Beyblades like lS. I'm not sure I would support infinite mode changes even with how easy to disassemble Burst Beyblades are because Deck Format battles take long enough as it stands. If anything, it would be once or maybe twice per Deck Format battle. Also, just wanted to address your proposed rules for this @[ThaKingTai] ThaKingTai Wrote:1: Allow the Blader to be able to change modes but with the catch that they are not allowed to have a third bey. The judge must be the one to change the mode and it must be announced beforehand. 1. What happens when someone wants to use two mode changing Beyblades? Not allowed? This is part of the reason why I think it would be easier to implement if we simply say "you may change the mode of parts which require disassembly once/twice per Deck Format match in total" (meaning you can only do one/two mode changes across your entire Deck for that match). There's still limitations, but they don't complicate the core mechanics of how Deck Format works significantly. I also think taking away the ability to have a third Beyblade–while interesting–is too crippling given how relatively insignificant mode changes can be relative to the worth of an entire third Beyblade. To me, if we were to implement this, the goal would be to allow Bladers more versatility, not less. 2. What I don't like about this one is that it requires someone to have two copies of the same Layer; it seems unfair to expect this. The alternative would be to allow players to switch the Layer between their two different Disk/Driver combinations, which seems sloppy. (Sep. 22, 2017 6:54 AM)Achi-baba Wrote: I was just about to talk to a Committee member about a similar proposal for deck format. I have made a combo that can beat one type of top tier bey in one mode and put up a good fight with another top tier combo in the other. But in deck format, I can't predict what most of my opponents are going to use in their deck, or if they'll use both combos. The one situation–which I referenced above–that I was thinking about today was the situation with Legend Spriggan. I do think in this specific instance, it would make Attack as a whole more viable in Burst because right now the prospect of your right-spin lS being shut down by Drain Fafnir in Deck Format has kind of killed it in Toronto. I'm curious, what do you think about all of this @[1234beyblade]? Being able to switch once after you see your opponent's deck is another option as well. However in this case, if both players want to do so, it would have to be double-blind, which almost defeats the purpose of all of this. I like the idea of being able to switch modes after a loss and you see what your opponent is using for the next round more. Seems more purposeful. Being able to switch after your Beyblade bursts is interesting, but seems too random to be effective or add any strategy to Deck Format in my mind. RE: WBO Organized Play Official Rules - Yami - Sep. 26, 2017 (Sep. 26, 2017 3:25 AM)Kei Wrote: Being able to switch after your Beyblade bursts is interesting, but seems too random to be effective or add any strategy to Deck Format in my mind. But some may abuse to burst it own bey without contact to another if they're willing to take that risk to give the opponent the point and change mode or direction afterwards or actually could force to burst in the pocket as their SKO or if the blader picks up the beyblade as it is still spinning but bursts in his/her hands will that also be eligible to switch? |