I'm in the semi-"hate" category. A big reason for why I dislike this format comes from *my perspective* that tournaments are about competing in the moment. If you can't beat someone or score a qualifying score in X amount of tries when it counts, you weren't the best player that day.

Although now I know better, when I first saw this format in pinball I thought it was a con to just pad the pools.

What I *do* like is when this format is run with a cap on the re-buys. I believe that is how you ran it at PPE? If you think you can qualify in 1 shot, you save money. If you need all X amount of times to qualify, that's fine...because EVERYONE is on the same level playing field to qualify.

One major thing about your perspective that I don't share is the "luck factor" (aside from games like Fireball, which are designed to play by themselves). Yeah, there are house-balls and yeah, the "ball is wild" in as much as any ball bouncing in a predictable way can be -- but I don't believe luck actually plays as much into this genre of game as some people claim. If pinball was that much about luck, Herb format most certainly does not somehow nullify the luck and replace it with skill. An argument could be made that Herb is just an attempt to replace bad luck with good luck (the more times you roll the dice, the better chances you have of hitting the side of the dice you want). If a pinball player is leaning that hard on the luck factor, unfortunately, it's a sign to me that he/she is not mentally prepared for competitive play yet.

As for if we might as well just have match play, that's the end of the means of Herb. The point is to seed for match play. Limiting re-buys does not suddenly make the qualifying round not worth going through.

Again, no, it does not. This is where we're going to have to agree to disagree. Positive results in luck-based games thrive on increased attempts, not less. I see your perspective, that you see scenarios where a bad player flails a killer qualifying score in 1 try. Everyone is limited to 3 re-tries and none of the skilled players can take it. That isn't a failure of the limited re-buy format somehow giving the bad player an advantage, it's a failure on the part of the skilled players getting schooled by a random flailer on an even playfield.

Now, will increased entries allow for skilled players to get use to the machine they are playing on? Allow them to figure out that the skull shot on the T2 in front of them requires a later flip than the T2 in their living room? Allow them to figure out that the tilt on the tournament's F-14 only allows one solid nudge where the one at their league allows them to dance the machine out the door?

Yes.

But that is not an issue of luck, as much as players who fail to hit the skull shot or tilt the F-14 will want to believe. It's being able to adjust your skills to the playfield placed in front of you as quickly as possible. The truly skilled players will nail these machines in as few re-buys as possible or at least within the limited number of re-buys allowed.

As for why finals are multiple games: It isn't to nullify any luck factors. Every game type utilizes more games in their finals matches. In game types that are truly head-to-head in nature (chess/checkers/tennis/flinging shit at each other) the increased games allows for opponents to read each other and alter strategies to win. The truly skilled player will utilize those extra games to out-read and out-play their opponent, the better doing it in as few games as possible. In something like pinball, it's which player will adjust better to the obstacle put in front of them (the machine). The better player will adjust their skills sooner and more often under the pressure of playing several different games.

I'm sorry man, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here. That Fireball is a luck game, but it's not, but because it's not a luck heavy game it is not a good tournament game?