+- 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: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion (/Thread-Experimental-Tournament-Format-Changes-Discussion)
Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Kei - Sep. 06, 2016
Current Rules:
View Experimental Format Rules v3 - November 2016
Old Rules:
View Experimental Format Rules v2 - September 2016
Hi everyone! Recently among the WBO Committee we have been discussing a large list of potential changes to the way we run our events in Organized Play. This past weekend in Toronto we hosted an experimental Burst Format event–THE BEY-GINNING OF AN ERA–with all of these changes in effect.
Bey Brad posted an outline of these changes in the Organizers’ Circle recently. Here’s an excerpt from his post outlining the changes:
(Aug. 31, 2016 2:14 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: The way the WBO runs tournaments has changed very little in the eight years we’ve existed. Since we’re currently in the process of updating pretty much everything, we decided it was time to take a hard look at our tournament formats and systems.
After some discussion, we’re rolling this out as an experimental format to see if it’s suitable for the WBO going forward. The changes are as follows:
- Swiss-format first stage
- Single Elimination final stage for top 4/8, depending on tournament size (tiebreaker battle for 3rd)
- Deck rotation to be used in final stage
- 2 point Burst Finishes/KOs — still 3 points to win in first stage, 5 points to win in second stage
- Seeding based strictly on BeyRank.
- Tiebreakers: Ties when advancing to the final stage are broken by 1) outcome of previous matches in the tournament between two tied players [winner moves on], 2) Median-Buchholz score in Challonge
- Challonge usage is mandatory (only for this trial — pen + paper templates will be provided later)
- No banned parts (Odin unbanned)
These rule changes are not final and may change throughout the duration of the test, including after the first trial event. A more detailed rule sheet will be provided before more tournaments roll out.
These rule changes will bring us in line with how other competitive hobbies (like Pokémon and Magic: The Gathering) run their respective tournaments, and will make our tournaments fairer, faster, more action-packed and, in the case of deck rotation in the finals, immensely more strategic.
For the test event, we ended up with nine participants. With that in mind, I will go through each of the new rule changes and will talk about how the event went, what worked, what didn’t, and how I think we should proceed forward. I also invite anyone reading this–especially participants in the event–to post their thoughts as well!
Swiss Format
I like Swiss Format, but my biggest question going in to this event was what an appropriate number of rounds would be. We had been looking at how many rounds are used for Magic: The Gathering tournaments based on the number of participants, but seeing that for 5-8 player events only three rounds are played and that for 9-16 player events, only four rounds are played, it seemed like the tournaments on the lower end of the spectrum would suffer from being far too short (especially when you consider the additional change of making Burst Finishes and KOs worth two points). BeyBattles can be finished in a much shorter amount of time than a match in Magic: The Gathering or any other card game too.
In Japan, some tournaments are painfully short because they are single elimination and most participants only get to play one or two BeyBttles. To date, most of our events are perhaps too long given that they run with round robin or block round robin where users get to play between something like four and twelve guaranteed BeyBattles. Tournaments at large conventions like Anime North with 30+ participants are generally the only exceptions as of late where we use formats like Swiss (although seeing these become a reality outside of special occasions like this is likely on the horizon given that Burst is launching internationally).
For this event, we played four rounds of Swiss. This does seem like a fair number, but it does strike me as perhaps too harsh still given the nature of luck as it relates to Beyblade. In our second event of the day that was ranked and used our regular format for example, I started 0-2 which would have probably killed me in a Swiss Format event, but because we played Round Robin, I still had a chance to make a comeback and ended the RR with a 6-3 record.
At this point in time, I don’t know if I’m sold on Swiss being the singular format we should switch to for all events given that so many of ours are played with such a relatively low amount of participants. BeyBattles happen so quickly in relation to matches in things like competitive card games that can take upwards of 20, 30, or even 40 minutes. For large events, Swiss is the best because it is the best way to give all participants a decent number of matches without being too harsh and without making the tournament run too long, but for smaller events I feel as if we can afford to continue using Round Robin and Block Round Robin as it makes for a better, more fair, and fun experience for players given the nature of Beyblade’s battle length and role of luck in the selection process.
However, if we decide against using Swiss for everything, what we will need to determine is where to draw the line in terms of number of participants needed for using Round Robin/Block Round Robin and using Swiss Format.
This website is also a good tool for running tests on the size of Swiss Format events and how many rounds are played. For whatever Swiss events we do end up allowing for WBO Organized Play in the future, we will need to try and find the sweet spot where we end up with four or eight clear finalists each time. Resorting to tiebreakers is inevitable sometimes, but is not the ideal.
Single Elimination w/Deck Rotation Final Stage
I really like this. For larger finals it results in less battles which is a positive for us in terms of lowering the amount of time it takes to complete an event, but it doesn’t sacrifice any of the room for error afforded by doing a round robin final where you can maybe make mistakes and still have a chance at placing.
Deck Rotation requires greater skill and knowledge to play well, so it seems well suited for the finals of our events. It also allows some margin for error by allowing Bladers to switch Beyblades after a loss, which is essential. Given this fact, battles between high level players also take on a dimension greater than simply being able to make the best single Beyblade choice and then being able to execute to the best of your ability with the match-up you’re thrown in to.
For those that have played it to date, Deck Rotation has been almost universally praised, with the only criticism being that sometimes entire events with them take too long. We feel like this is a good compromise and a great way to fit in the format into our existing Organized Play events.
We only had four people for the final for our experimental event which resulted in the same amount of BeyBattles as a regular final round robin would have been, but for larger events where eight finalists would be needed, using Single Elimination Deck Rotation would surely be much quicker than doing a round robin (which is essentially an entire tournament on it’s own). That said, if we choose to not move forward with Swiss Format for smaller events, we would need to evaluate how to apply this to Block Round Robin in cases where you have for example, three blocks and want four/eight finalists. I’m sure there would be a way, but I don't know right now if it would be too complicated.
Seeding Based Strictly on BeyRank
(Aug. 31, 2016 3:47 AM)Kei Wrote: Seeding based on BeyRank is one thing in addition we are asking from hosts if we follow through with it, but I also think it is a valuable addition because it lends another layer of meaning to the rankings that actually manifests itself in our competitive environment. Rather than being just a number on your profile, striving to ascend the rankings becomes something you do not only for satisfaction but to give you slightly more favourable match-ups when Swiss Format pairings are decided.
I don’t have too much to add on this point beyond what I’ve stated above here. It really is not difficult to check the BeyRank of a participant during an event, and to set up the participant list in order the day or morning before the event.
This is something I think we should absolutely mandate.
2 Point Burst Finishes/KOs
I said in one of my posts in the Organizers’ Circle thread that 2 point Bursts was definitely debatable, but in reality, it turns out that for our regular format where 3 points are needed for victory, it is 2 point KOs (with contact) that really suck.
The hope behind this rule is that is encourages the use of Attack types, but in our event so many times the KOs that scored two points were completely pathetic and demoralizing for players because they would happen immediately at the start of a round by accident after grazing the opposing Beyblade or a Stamina type would get the KO. Some of these are arguably the fault of the person launching, but it still left many players like myself feeling bitter to lose two points for something like that. In Deck Rotation it is more acceptable because there is a greater margin for error with five points needed for victory and the ability to switch Beyblades, but in our regular format this proposed rule gets a hard “No” from me for KOs at the very least.
Tiebreakers
I’d really like to implement this rule personally if only because additional BeyBattles played in tiebreakers are somewhat unfair to other participants because it means they don’t get to play in as many ranked battles as the people in the tiebreak (which can continue indefinitely). This ultimately gives players an advantage in the rankings to some degree because for the most part, tiebreaks are played between highly ranked players.
Using the tiebreak procedures proposed would allow for much quicker identification of finalists and provide no additional BeyBattles for players. The winners of such tiebreakers would have already got to play in at least one more battle in the finals anyways.
There is an argument to be made for keeping them that we ran into during our second event of the day which was ranked. At the end of the event, the standings were as follows:
JesseObre: 7-2
Kei: 6-3
1234beyblade: 6-3
Mitsu: 6-3
We played using round robin and needed three finalists, as is currently required in our rules. If we had applied the tiebreak procedures proposed here, I would have advanced because I defeated both 1234beyblade and Mitsu in the round robin play. 1234beyblade would have joined me because he beat Mitsu.
We ended up using the method we have used in the past where we just do tiebreak BeyBattles for everything. I ended up losing in the tiebreak and found myself on the outside looking in.
The argument for doing things this way is that because of the luck factor involved in Beyblade (especially in formats that are not Deck Rotation), the fact that I beat Mitsu and 1234beyblade in the round robin, that 1234beyblade beat Mitsu in the round robin, and that JesseObre was 7-2 while we were 6-3 doesn’t hold that much weight. The difference between winning and losing is so small that the results can only be more accurate the more BeyBattles you play. There is some weight to this position because it is rare for any player to go through an event undefeated and the difference between winning/losing is indeed small. For me however, we have to ultimately draw the line somewhere. Technik and Lani in the same event were 5-4, only one win away from being tied with 1234beyblade, Mitsu, and I at 6-3, yet they are completely excluded from discussion about the finals because the line has to be drawn somewhere despite it being such a fine one. Not every tournament is going to result in the “best” player winning, which is something I think everyone has to accept no matter how disappointed they might be about losing on any particular day.
So in my eyes, while there is no perfect world, the tiebreaker procedures proposed are logical, fair, and I think we should proceed with them.
Challonge
Big yes to this one! Toronto is probably the community that was lagging behind the most in this respect because I know many communities have already been using Challonge for a long time. Much smaller margin for error when running an event this way, and it’s also quicker to complete the event, so I don’t see a reason why we should mandate its usage for all hosts (except in special cases where it might not be accessible).
No Banned Parts (Odin Unbanned)
I’ve just posted the winning combinations for this event here, but I’ll post them again here:
Kei Wrote:THE BEY-GINNING OF AN ERA - 9/4/16
Toronto, Ontario, Canada - Experimental Burst Format
1st: 1234beyblade
Victory Valkyrie Knuckle Xtreme
Wyvern Heavy Revolve
Deathscyther Gravity Defense
Dark Deathscyther Spread Orbit
2nd: pyrus10000
Deathscyther Heavy Revolve
Odin Heavy Revolve
Dark Deathscyther Gravity Orbit
Deathscyther Spread Orbit
3rd: JesseObre
Dark Deathscyther Gravity Defense
Deathscyther Heavy Defense
Valkyrie Triple Trans
Odin Heavy Revolve
Deathscyther Spread Orbit
Note: Please keep in mind that we also had the 2 point Burst Finish and KO rule in effect for this event, which surely affected Beyblade selection for some players. This list also includes all Beyblades each finalist used for the Deck Rotation finals.
As you can see, Odin does appear on the winning combos lists for pyrus10000 and JesseObre. From what I understand, pyrus10000 leaned on Odin quite heavily throughout the event. But it should surprise no one that Odin is still a good Layer, I’m sure.
However, what was surprising was how unimpressive Odin really seemed to be in terms of burst resistance and stamina in comparison to the picture we all have kind of held of it since it was banned. In our informal testing before the event Attack types were able to make short work of it, and during the event it lost to Deathscyther several times, including my Odin Knuckle Revolve combo. I can’t speak for everyone else, but before this event I didn’t have a chance to test Odin and construct well-balanced combos–which is worth keeping in mind–but during the event it did seem to fit in well to the metagame from my perspective. If we decide to unban it, it will definitely be used, but I can’t see it becoming overwhelming like it was before.
If anything, we should be taking a look at Deathscyther and Dark Deathscyther and thinking about what the metagame might look like with them out of the picture. But I know that’s a huge question and something that frankly, probably won’t happen given our track record with banning parts in main formats.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 06, 2016
Thanks so much for publishing this Kei. Tagging @[Cake] and @[Wombat] so they can give us a piece of their minds, though I'm sure they'd find their way here eventually
The goal of running at least one event before opening the format to public discussion was so that we could get any more-obvious issues out of the way. Seems like this event served its purpose. Rather than quote all your comments, I'm just going to address each section.
Swiss-format
I too am unsure if it makes sense for us to use this at our smaller tournaments. I agree that at smaller sizes it seems like the number of rounds can be quite low (at 8 people, there's only 3 rounds!). I definitely would like to doing our own custom round # table to see if just adding extra swiss rounds might be one solution to this.
2 Point Burst Finishes/KOs
Surprised to hear that the big issue was KOs, and not BF, in the end. We'd hoped to make it consistent with deck format in the finals, but I am not sure deck works without at least 2 points for a KO. Maybe the formats will really have to be different.
Tiebreakers
Quote:Not every tournament is going to result in the “best” player winning, which is something I think everyone has to accept no matter how disappointed they might be about losing on any particular day.
I think this is obvious, though? Which is why I don't agree with your comments that losing two matches eliminating you from finals progression is "harsh." If losing two matches doesn't prevent you from advancing, what should? Ultimately, making it to the finals should not be considered a "default state" even for high-level players.
Beyblade does have a luck-factor — deck format in the finals mitigates this to some degree — but that's just the nature of the beast. While hardcore players may be happy to play 10 matches or more pre-finals, that amount of playing (and mostly, waiting) can wear down a lot of people.
Challonge
Glad you're on board
Next up: an official WBO guide for Challonge!These posts from Cake and Wombat also have interesting thoughts:
https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-The-metagame-and-balance-why-do-you-care?pid=1341231#pid1341231
https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-The-metagame-and-balance-why-do-you-care?pid=1341546#pid1341546
It seems like these are some suggestions for deck format that keep coming up:
- Players reveal decks to each other before the match
- Winner can also switch
- Only KO should be worth 2 points
I do worry that these three rules combined will slow things to a crawl, though; deck format is already more time-consuming than standard matches. Winner and loser both switching will, in particular, lead to a lot of hesitation, plus each player has to be able to confidently make their selection in secret, etc ...
For those of you who have played deck before, how do you feel about these above rule changes?
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Ultra - Sep. 06, 2016
As far as challonge goes though what about people who don't own a laptop/can't access wifi where they're hosting? Seems unnecessary to me because of that.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Kei - Sep. 06, 2016
Will reply to you Brad later once I have more time!
(Sep. 06, 2016 7:42 PM)Ultra Wrote: As far as challonge goes though what about people who don't own a laptop/can't access wifi where they're hosting? Seems unnecessary to me because of that.
We've postulated that the amount of people who have a cell phone with data in 2016 is much higher now versus 2008 when we started, which makes Challonge much more viable to encourage. It doesn't take much data at all to use it from your phone since you're basically just loading text-based pages.
For events where no participants have any way of accessing Challonge, we will still permit the use of pen and paper, but it will not be encouraged.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 06, 2016
To be clear re: Challonge, we will prepare WBO swiss worksheets for those who can't use Challonge. But considering most of our communities started using Challonge without us asking them to do so, we're leaning into its functionality. I think every host who has used it has found it extremely helpful.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Ultra - Sep. 06, 2016
If a specific community doesn't like it can we opt out or not? The way we've always done it works just fine for the UK IMO.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 06, 2016
(Sep. 06, 2016 9:34 PM)Ultra Wrote: If a specific community doesn't like it can we opt out or not? The way we've always done it works just fine for the UK IMO.
Toronto was one of the communities resisting Challonge because things "worked just fine" and they noticed an immediate improvement from using it, for what it's worth. But as I wrote immediately above, we will provide pen and paper sheets for Swiss if we go with swiss, so if you're used to keeping track of things on paper, there shouldn't be a big change for you.
If you're asking if communities can opt out of any rule changes we make once they're finalized, the answer is no (although we can't force you to participate while things are still in the experimental stage). The original organized play formats were hastily written during our formative years and haven't been looked at it a long time. That's how we end up with totally unpredictable numbers of battles per tournament and weird tiebreaker loops.
Basically, this old stuff "works just fine," but doesn't hold up to a ton of scrutiny and there are clearly better paths available to us should we choose to take them.
If you have specific issues with what's proposed above, please let us know.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Thunder Dome - Sep. 06, 2016
(Sep. 06, 2016 9:34 PM)Ultra Wrote: If a specific community doesn't like it can we opt out or not? The way we've always done it works just fine for the UK IMO.Why would you opt to choose pen and paper when there is an online system that can instantly set up your bracket for you much easier and records stuff much easier? Not to mention through out the tournament you can even see everyone's current ranking in the bracket, which a lot of people take note of and you can see it definitely changes their style of play. I believe Challonge is an amazing thing for our community and we should all definitely take advantage.
Any specific reason your not fine with challonge?
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 06, 2016
Agree with Thunder Dome, using — and learning how to properly use — Challonge has made hosting go from stressful to easy, for me.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Beylon - Sep. 07, 2016
(Sep. 06, 2016 4:46 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: It seems like these are some suggestions for deck format that keep coming up:
- Players reveal decks to each other before the match
- Winner can also switch
- Only KO should be worth 2 points
I do worry that these three rules combined will slow things to a crawl, though; deck format is already more time-consuming than standard matches. Winner and loser both switching will, in particular, lead to a lot of hesitation, plus each player has to be able to confidently make their selection in secret, etc ...
For those of you who have played deck before, how do you feel about these above rule changes?
The original WarShell rules (from early 2014) are basically the same as Deck Rotation. The idea was to help players respond to homemade Beyblade designs they couldn't possibly have any prior knowledge of, mid-battle. Everyone testing the rules liked the idea - but everyone, independent of any echo-chamber effect, also wanted to see the exact list of features you've posted:
- Players reveal decks to each other before the match
- Winner can also switch
- Only KO should be worth 2 points
And for almost three years now, this has worked very well for WarShell. While I agree that winners switching and players revealing decks have the potential to slow things down (they never do in WarShell, but it only uses three blades in each deck), the trend seems to be that non-designers want these features. I've come to accept it.
Not totally relevant, but whatever.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 07, 2016
Well, "only KO should be worth 2 points" can't really be compared when in Warshell I assume the tops don't explode ... lol
Also, for all the talk of WarShell I've never seen any gameplay footage. Would love to.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 07, 2016
How about giving the loser the opportunity to switch, and only if they switch is the winner also allowed to switch (or not)? This gives the loser of the previous round some control over the tempo of battle, at least
Also, what should the rules for switching and re-attaching look like? When it's just the loser switching, they can just grab it and attach it. With both players, they will have to conceal and attach secretly.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Leone19 - Sep. 07, 2016
Just going to throw this in this topic because I think it's really important to remember and keep in mind:
(Aug. 31, 2016 3:01 AM)The Supreme One Wrote: Pardon my lack of general tournament knowledge, but by seeding do you mean match-ups based on Beyrank? If so, I'd personally have to advocate against that due to the fact that it would require a working internet connection as well as added time and stress searching for each player's rank right before the tournament begins. While change in the way WBO tournaments are run is certainly overdue—particularly in regards to the running of finals—hosting is already fairly time-consuming and adding even more rules & regulations in addition to requiring players to have an internet connection at the time of the event (which I know I didn't when I was at AFO) may do more harm than good right now.
As much as we may want to present ourselves as a competitive community on par with hobbies like Magic and Pokemon, the very nature of our organization makes this difficult as our hosts are much younger than those of our counterparts and I think we need to respect this by not asking more of the community than they can easily handle.
I saw this format change last night and read through some posts, definitely agree with the bold part the most. Especially with Burst now becoming popular in North America and the rest of the world, it's going to attract a heck of a lot more kids to this hobby then we currently have. That means alot more players in general at events, as well as new hosts popping up as the toy becomes popular. Keeping things as simple as possible for hosts whether younger or older is the best way to go, in my opinion. I use Challonge when internet is available which has been most of the cases when I host, but when I do use it, it can be difficult. Back when TheSupremeOne hosted with me, she knows how shotty the internet is at our venue and we it was a bit stressful at times to access Challonge. While it can be assumed everyone has internet or data access, that's nice, but it's too big of an assumption in my opinion. Especially if younger members host at a public venue, there's a decent chance that they won't get good wifi or have a data using device on hand. It would be sportsmanlike is a fellow player lends a useable device if one was not available, but it can't be assumed that will happen. Challonge should be encouraged, but not mandatory. Pen and paper can be just as easy if not easier in certain situations. I get that it can't necessarily be mandated after reading this again, but I don't think pen and paper should be discouraged for the same reasons; both options should be open.
Same thing with the BeyRank mandate in my opinion. It makes it difficult for a host to have to find specific BeyRanks for all the members, especially if the event attracts lots of people. While most of us are older, it's easy to say that finding the ranks is simple and won't be extra work, but it is. For younger hosts and even veteran hosts, it makes the process longer and a bit more stressful if the event is big and only one host is doing the searching. Again, it would be great to say that a fellow player would jump in and help in a situation like that, but it's no guarantee. The wifi/data issue applies here, as well. For me, these possible new mandates should be encouragements, but not mandated, at least not for first time hosts. Hosting can be a stressful task depending on the event and especially for new hosts, adding these new mandates can put more pressure on them making sure everything is done right. I feel like as far as those two ideas go, they should not become mandated. Thinking of new hosts mostly, it would make the process more complicated, longer, and to me, it seems unnecessary to mandate these things. While the ideas are nice, we need to keep things as simple, easy, and fun as possible for the hosts and younger members.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Cake - Sep. 07, 2016
I've been thinking this over since Brad tagged me, and I've had time to run a couple simulated tournaments to test things out for seeding.
(Sep. 07, 2016 6:13 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: How about giving the loser the opportunity to switch, and only if they switch is the winner also allowed to switch (or not)? This gives the loser of the previous round some control over the tempo of battle, at leastI like this idea; this way if you lose a matchup you think you should have won, you can choose to try again if you don't want to risk switching things around. It encourages risky but skillful play, which should help check "safe" combos somewhat without being too formulaic. I'm all for it
(Sep. 07, 2016 6:13 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: Also, what should the rules for switching and re-attaching look like? When it's just the loser switching, they can just grab it and attach it. With both players, they will have to conceal and attach secretly.Yeah, the blind pick will probably slow things down somewhat, but unlike with the first-stage qualifying matches where you can pick any combo from your collection, in Deck Format you have three options total. A while ago we cut back the old Stalling Clause from five to three minutes, here an even shorter time is acceptable due to the reduced pool of choices; I would suggest about one minute, maybe a little more. The deck reveal phase at the start of the match could be 30 to 60 seconds (though I doubt that a full minute is necessary to inspect three combos). It won't be as fast as Deck Format is at present, but even if both players run out the clock on every round and play the longest game possible, you're looking at 10 minutes added time as opposed to the qualifiers' 9 minutes (though a maximum of 9 rounds instead of 5 will certainly take up more time). Brad's idea should also help mitigate the amount of time used for picking due to repeat rounds.
With regard to the length of Swiss qualifiers, it's possible to add an even number of additional matches on top of the required number without compromising the results; adding an odd number of matches skews the results from the "ideal" final configuration due to the way that the seeding plays out and because the middle ranks are under significantly more flux than the high and low ranks are (Basically, near-top players who are bumped down in one additional match will end up ranked similarly to middle-ranked players who won their match). Adding a second match reverts this, allowing any highly ranked players who lost their matches to recover, while also giving time for any upsets to be confirmed by another match. Being able to add extra matches means that you can extend any size of tournament to an appropriate length (perhaps 5-7 matches, depending on the size and complexity of the event), and as an added bonus, those matches will largely be played by Bladers of similar skill level (or at least W/L record).
In the event that you need to reduce the size of a Swiss event, there's the accelerated pairings format, in which the pool of participants is split in half, with the top half pairing off against each other and the bottom half facing each other. This reduces the length of the tournament by one match, and also has the effect of isolating the weakest Bladers early on without letting them be immediately dominated by more skilled participants, making it more suitable for large events with lots of new players. It does reduce the amount of chances for upsets, but the effects of early matches are relatively small in comparison to any changes in the later games anyways.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 07, 2016
Thanks Cake! Just to clarify, did you mean rounds here?
Quote:With regard to the length of Swiss qualifiers, it's possible to add an even number of additional matches on top of the
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Manicben - Sep. 08, 2016
Here are my thoughts as main host of London...
Swiss Format
As a small community atm with an average participant number of 8 members, Swiss is a big no-no for us. The event would go by almost too quickly and less able players will be put off by the format. However, I understand the appeal for faster tournaments, since ours do take several hours (usually 3-4). The Experimental Format seems to put emphasis on the finals, which is great, but if new players have no chance of getting to the finals, I feel London would quickly lose potential regulars when the time comes.
Finals
All good on this one. Finals were getting boring IMO lel
Beyrank seeding
Well this totally makes sense to me. Makes matches more fair towards new players and more challenging for veterans. All good.
2 point Burst Finish/KO
Uh, not sure about this one. I personally (and almost everyone here) would hate this rule. Wouldn't mind it in Deck Rotation, but in first to 3 points, some people would feel cheated by a KO 1 or 2 seconds in or by a last second Burst Finish. If this does get implemented, then fine, but I still am not a fan.
Tiebreakers
Didn't read much into this, but anything goes for us. The usual rematch/RR tiebreaker procedure is fine, and the proposed (whatever it is lel) I assume works too.
Challonge
Big yes from me. @[Ultra] seems to not like the idea, but I think Challonge will be a big step forward. Most of us have mobile data, so no Internet related issues there. Challonge will make the entire process much nicer and less prone to human error. Now we just need a way to convert Challonge data to WBO spreadsheet data automatically... (Ahem... Challonge Accepted! Uh... I'll show myself out...)
Unbanned parts
Well, I reckon Odin isn't so OP anymore, especially with many London members using attack combos. All good with me
I'm willing to give this format a try in October and hopefully it will go smoothly. My hope is that I get some good feedback from the participants, as they are the priority here. This format may look good to us, but in the end, if the participants themselves don't like it, then what's the point?
Let me know if there's any issues with what I've said here.
(Oh and an official WBO Guide to Challonge would be awesome!
)
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 08, 2016
I think expecting new players to make it to the finals with any level of consistency is ... unfair, isn't it? It should be possible but not likely. I feel the concerns about the short number of rounds, and I figure we are going to have to address it. I'd love to hear from Toronto players how they felt about the number of rounds pre-finals, and thoughts on this format in general? @[Mitsu] @[1234beyblade] @[JesseObre] @[LMAO] @[Technik] @[Lani] and anyone else is welcome.
I would never, as a new player, expect to make it to the finals of any game.
Quote:2 point Burst Finish/KO
Uh, not sure about this one. I personally (and almost everyone here) would hate this rule. Wouldn't mind it in Deck Rotation, but in first to 3 points, some people would feel cheated by a KO 1 or 2 seconds in or by a last second Burst Finish. If this does get implemented, then fine, but I still am not a fan.
Seems like it wasn't great in first-to-3 in Toronto either, so this will probably be scrapped.
Quote:Now we just need a way to convert Challonge data to WBO spreadsheet data automatically... (Ahem... Challonge Accepted! Uh... I'll show myself out...)
Haha, this would be awesome. Challonge does have an API. I wish I could say we could look into taking this on, but our technical roadmap is full for a long while. Maybe next year?
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Cake - Sep. 08, 2016
(Sep. 07, 2016 11:59 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: Thanks Cake! Just to clarify, did you mean rounds here?
Quote:With regard to the length of Swiss qualifiers, it's possible to add an even number of additional matches on top of the
I mean whichever term is used to refer to the larger category, as in "a match consists of up to five rounds" or whatever XD
I reflexively cycle through synonyms when writing to keep things from getting stale, but in this case they mean very different things.
Just to make sure I'm being clear with my point, it's possible to extend the schedule of the tournament by adding an even number of rounds past the normal amount required to isolate a final group. This means that for extremely small tournaments of 7 or 8 people, you can extend the tournament to Round Robin lengths while still operating in the Swiss format, which allows for on-the-fly changes to the match schedule. For example, if you had 10 people and planned on extending the game out to 8 rounds (about Round Robin sized) from the required 4, but some problem caused delays and you are suddenly running short on time, you can cut back to 6 rounds instead to compensate, with little difference in finals standings.
(Sep. 08, 2016 12:26 AM)Bey Brad Wrote:Quote:Now we just need a way to convert Challonge data to WBO spreadsheet data automatically... (Ahem... Challonge Accepted! Uh... I'll show myself out...)
Haha, this would be awesome. Challonge does have an API. I wish I could say we could look into taking this on, but our technical roadmap is full for a long while. Maybe next year?
It appears that the Challonge API can only access tournament data for the user whose API key it's using, which means that if we want to make a tool for converting tournament data, either anyone who wants to use it will need to pass it their API key and username, or there would have to be a single account that all tournaments would be hosted on. Unless I'm misreading it, that is
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 08, 2016
Sorry, no, we understood matches to be the same thing then. I was wondering if you meant tournament rounds.
As for Challonge, we'll create an organization in it, but not a single user account.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 08, 2016
@[Leone19], I totally meant to reply earlier but got sidetracked. Sorry!
For what it's worth, I totally agree with The Supreme One. Beyblade is a game of a different nature and we should obviously be accommodating for that. However, the assumption is that we're making tournaments more difficult to run; I don't think that's the case.
The idea is to build a rock-solid standard and then produce very clear instructions on how to follow it. We currently have a mishmash of wordy rules and guides that I think don't paint a very clear picture. But before we can produce those guidelines, we have to solidify the format. That's what we're trying to do now.
We'll still provide pen and paper templates for people who don't have internet access. But it just makes sense to default to Challonge when so many of our communities are already using (and enjoying) it, and the barrier to using it is quite low. But again ... if you don't want to use it, you won't be obligated to.
As for BeyRank seeding, you will be able to see a list of all confirmed attendees and their BeyRank. It would take less than five minutes to go into Challonge and input all the participants and their seed order the night before a tournament. It's not really a lot to ask, especially when you consider that these hosts are also doing much more complex tasks like collecting money and creating results spreadsheets. And we'll always be here to help.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - The Supreme One - Sep. 08, 2016
(Sep. 08, 2016 3:14 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: As for BeyRank seeding, you will be able to see a list of all confirmed attendees and their BeyRank. It would take less than five minutes to go into Challonge and input all the participants and their seed order the night before a tournament. It's not really a lot to ask, especially when you consider that these hosts are also doing much more complex tasks like collecting money and creating results spreadsheets. And we'll always be here to help.Hate to post repeatedly on the topic, but for me at least, the seeding is really the biggest issue I have with these tournament format changes. When I hosted at AFO in July, I had no idea who would show up the night before aside from Brisk Aquario—pretty much everyone else was either unconfirmed or showed up the day of, and the majority of the players we had fell into the category of the latter.
While looking up Beyranks for players like Xenoblader and Redhayne wouldn't have taken more than a few minutes, the entire building got zero cell signal (a fact that I wasn't aware of until I got there) and I would have had to leave the premises once the event had already officially started in order to look up Beyranks, in addition to being unable to use Challonge. I would hope that exceptions could be made in this situation, but that itself would create additional stress if players don't know whether or not the event will be ranked until it's reported, not to mention that once one exception is granted, other hosts may follow suit.
I hate to react so negatively to what the committee obviously sees as a positive change, but while seeding and using Challonge may seem like small additions to a host's obligations, it's still asking a lot given that filling out the mandatory spreadsheets, writing up a report, and getting in contact with players regarding customizations can already take a good two hours. It's not just the time, but also the stress and patience that these hours of preparation, organization, and reporting require that makes it hard for me to envision more—rather than less—players eager to host on a regular basis once these changes are formally put in place.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Kai-V - Sep. 08, 2016
The Supreme One, I just want to let you know that I completely understand your issues and I also know that that and other aspects can be problematic for more than just you.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 08, 2016
Don't worry about it, it's important that you bring up these situations so we make sure we're not ruining the experience while trying to improve it!
Were these people coming existing players with at least one tournament under their belt already? I ask because it's not really a big deal if you can't sort on BeyRank except for high-ranked players, who will almost certainly confirm by the night before a tournament. If you don't know someone's BeyRank, you can just sort them in at the bottom, as the differences between scores are likely trivial. It's in high-ranking player's best interests to make sure they are actually seeded based on rank.
I really don't think these changes are adding more work for organizers, and I honestly haven't seen how it does yet. We are working on new resources for organizers, clearer directions on what to do when, simplifying the process of proposing and hosting tournaments, etc. We are doing these experimental tests now so that we can launch final resources based on whatever format we find works. You will see all of that take shape over the next few months here.
We aren't going to roll this out as a standard format unless we're confident after hosting several test events and refining the formula that it works for everyone. We will get rid of the parts of this that don't work, as we are already doing (we will test variations on deck rotation, we will eliminate 2-point wins from standard, and we will look into adding more rounds). And we definitely will not mandate access to internet on-site.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - The Supreme One - Sep. 08, 2016
(Sep. 08, 2016 3:56 AM)Kai-V Wrote: The Supreme One, I just want to let you know that I completely understand your issues and I also know that that and other aspects can be problematic for more than just you.
Thank you for replying
I never like to voice my negative opinions, much less share my thoughts more than once on an issue like this, but this organization has been an important part of my life for many years and I really feel that in order for it to continue to thrive, we need to embrace the next new wave of young hosts and encourage them to contribute to the organization by making the hosting process as enjoyable and stress-free as possible. I'm sure we can find a middle ground.
RE: Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion - Bey Brad - Sep. 08, 2016
I think so too, and the goal is not to produce something that makes organizers feel more stressed. If that's the outcome, then we'll have to go back to the drawing board. The goal is not to propose the perfect solution and merely to test it to see if it works, but to actually produce the perfection version by testing new approaches. The end result needs to be easier than the current system.
I think we can seriously address most of your major concerns.