New states in the SCS include Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Nevada and West Virginia.

All SCS championships and PCS championships ... And also the ECS will be happening on February 7th. We'll be crowning 38 different champions that day.

To qualify for the SCS the IFPA looks for the following:

- At least 2 events held in that state
- A volunteer to serve as the IFPA State Representative and handle the logistics of organizing and running the State Championship tournament itself

Josh

WV State Rep didn't feel confident with the location options in WV, and felt that the PA location chosen will result in less potential issues for the championship.

KY's State Championship is also in OH this year, so there's a couple happening cross borders.

With best of 7 matches, a collection of at least 7+ games is preferred for the State Reps to use (just to avoid repeat game titles in the same match).

It's up to the State Rep to make the call on that.

Personally for me in Illinois there were a ton of locations where qualifying tournaments were held that I definitely would not consider for the State Championship tournament itself.

I find for IL using one of the home collections makes for a better chance for a smoother event, with my effort going towards finding a host collection that isn't one of the qualifiers.

You would have to talk to the individual State Rep to get feedback on their process.

Those Decision will be made by the State Rep. I know last year in Illinois the weather was awful, but we managed. I always assume it's mostly a 'local' affair for those 16 players, so all effort it made to play it that day even if it's delayed for everyone to get there.

Hilton - This is the exact same 'Live' Registration process we did last year.

Understanding that people watch the board and make their decisions based on other player's decisions, no decision is FINAL until the cutoff passes. At that point the latest answer that the IFPA receives from that player is their 'final answer'.

There is definitely some entertainment in the process, especially for those bubbling around the cut line. I know my dad was lobbying for a couple of Illinois guys at league this past weekend to choose other states so he could make the IL cut (he's currently 18th - 2nd alternate).

Any perceived strategic advantages for those deciding late, could be broken by a player deciding something early, and then changing that decision pre-deadline.

In the end, everything is still up in the air until the deadline hits (which is tomorrow night for all states, due to us getting the registration process started late in a couple of states).

Josh

The biggest problem for me personally, is that I would know the responses, and as a player in the SCS myself (or anything IFPA related), I don't want there to be any perceived advantages over me having access to information that others do not have access to. Really it's not fair if I know that information and everyone else doesn't, so that's how we roll.

You'll see similar situations with any tournaments that Zach and I run, and also participate in. If there's anything we learn about the tournament (games available, registration updates, etc), we will always share that information immediately to keep any perceived advantages to a minimum.

Except then YOU would have information that other people wouldn't have

With the State Reps handling their individual state responses, there's way too much information out there and available to those guys to make this sort of thing an impossibility. The competitive pinball community isn't big enough for those people to not share information with eachother, and other players who aren't State Reps.

Ultimately we're talking about a handful of guys that a) have a decision to make between states, and b) take as long as possible to make that decision . . . let them have their fun, or cause their drama, and there will still be 3.5 weeks left to start trash talking on the matchups for the 1st round.

Here's my problem with that Hilton . . .

There are some legitimate reasons for a player to actually wait and see their options before deciding (if you take the 'i'm just going to wait for the entertainment value' as illegitimate).

1) Where is the SCS final actually held. If I pre-select my top 3 states in preference, what if Illinois gets hosted by CP Pinball down in St. Louis? What if Wisconsin gets hosted wayyyyy up North? What if Indiana gets hosted down in Bloomington instead of Lafayette? I know after picking Jay's place for Illinois, the Indiana SCS final is a much shorter drive for many of the Illinois participants. All things being equal, allowing those people to choose the 'shortest drive' is something I believe they have the right to do, and something they couldn't have done ahead of time.

2) Games being used for various SCS finals. Again, all things being equal between two State choices, for me personally I would take the game list as probably the BIGGEST factor in where I would decide and play. Someone like my dad would love to choose a heavier classics game field, while I would tend to choose the State with a more modern game field. This can't be done until the SCS sites are picked, and some investigating into the game list is done. This was actually a question posed by a few Illinois players who were looking to play to their own strengths when deciding what State to pick.

3) Seeding advantages. Forgetting about who is attending, there is an advantage to knowing you will get 'home field advantage' by being the higher seeded player in any given match. This information again won't be known about until after qualifying is locked down in early January.

I completely understand where you are coming from. At this point seeing the increased participation between year 1 of the SCS, and year 2 . . . interest GREW (fact). I think with the WPPR v5.0 system coming into play in 2015 local events have a huge advantage now to being able to rack up tons of SCS points. Out of towners will have a much harder time keeping up compared to being able to drop in on 1 annual tournament and knowing that it would be enough WPPR points to qualify.

For those 'on the bubble' that may lose interest and stop playing, at some point the SCS, WPPR, etc. shouldn't be your ultimate decision maker on whether you go out and play in something. People should want to get out and play because it's FUN, with the SCS/WPPR stuff being one of those additional motivating factors to make things more enjoyable.

To qualify for the SCS you have to be one of the best players in that State.

We're not looking to crown the Indiana Resident Champion. We're looking at 'Who performed best at events in Indiana'. Many of those people happened to be from Illinois, but they were the best players IN Indiana, even if they weren't FROM Indiana.

We are absolutely crowning the best player IN each State for the SCS. State Reps are welcome to make up an additional certificate crowning the best player FROM their state

I have to imagine many of the ~600 SCS/PCS qualifiers are on Pinside . . . start a thread and see where the responses take it.

I LOVE the plan you guys have in Wisconsin to get it on a nice rotation, and won't hesitate to say that I have to deal with issues in many states that are nowhere even close to have something anywhere close to that kind of 'mutually agreed upon plan' that you guys have. Would be NICE!

I think looking at how players qualified for the SCS in 2013 and 2014, it's going to be a vastly different ballgame for 2015 under the new WPPR system. The number of players that are causing this 'drama' that you speak of is high single digits IMO, and I think that number will be greatly reduced for 2015.

But seriously start the thread, let's see where it goes. I'll definitely keep my eye on it.

I would argue otherwise. We created a scoring system where players have unlimited opportunities to earn as many WPPR points as they can, wherever they can. That's the 'metric' used in determining who is "best" for SCS purposes.

Trent played in 1 event in Indiana, and qualified 25th. Looks like he could have been the 15th seed if he selected Indiana based on how the choices above him shook out. This would make him the "15th best player" in the IN SCS field by our metrics, and we take the top 16 to get into the dance.

Again I think "IN" that State and "FROM" that State are two vastly different things, understanding completely the need/want to have someone FROM that State be crowned the best IN that State.

IMO it's not shady at all. Players have different motivations for what the SCS means to THEM, although I love people projecting what it means to them on 'everyone else'.

Here's what I see, and I talk to a TON of players about the SCS and they vary greatly in skill level/interest:

1) Players just interested in making the cut ANYWHERE, just to play in a State Championship for the thrill of it

2) Players interested in being the State Champ of their home state, where they have spent the year mostly battling those same players that will be in the SCS field

3) Players that are looking for the easiest path to any State Championship crown, with the motivating factor being the glory, or the easiest path to Nationals (~$4000 prize pool) + a chance to qualify for the IFPA World's.

My opinion is that players have earned the right for the SCS to mean whatever they want to them. With actual tangible value on the line with the Nationals trip and potential spot in the World Championship, I can't fault someone who's motivating factor is trying to find the easiest path, no matter how many people may disagree with that being an appropriate motivating factor.

To clarify this, there are FOUR Grand Slam tournaments that the IFPA recognizes based on the prestige of those events. These events follow the exact same formula as every other event, and then get a 50% boost due to the level of importance those events have on the sport.

PAPA World Championships - A division
IFPA World Championships - Main Tournament
Pinburgh Match Play Championships - A division
European Pinball Championships - Main Tournament

I like the Madison WI pun . . . nicely done

See the 3 motivating factors that I mentioned.

If he's motivated in 'easiest path to Nationals' and an attempt at a $4K prize pool, AND he thinks that Florida is the easiest path for him, AND he earned the right to choose that State through his play in IFPA endorsed tournaments . . . then YES (even if he could care less about the Florida State title itself).

I believe that under WPPR v5.0 the locals grinding away will have a much bigger impact. Under the old system every weekly/monthly tournament was limited to 25 WPPR points for that State in a given year. Now it's UNLIMITED.

For example, there's a league in New York that is a weekly league, I believe they had 72 players the first week. The winner of that week will be getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 35+ WPPR points for the NY SCS. They then get to do it AGAIN the following week. With those rules the players dropping in to play in a Circuit event in town have NO CHANCE to compete against the nearly 2000 WPPR points that this league will award as part of the NY SCS for 2015 should they run it 52 weeks this year.

Under the old system, those 52 events would be worth 0.5 WPPR points each . . . now they are 70X that value under the new system.

Have you checked out the new IFPA calendar?

http://www.ifpapinball.com/calendar/

Default setting is to pull up any IFPA endorsed tournament within a 500 mile radius of where it recognizes your IP address. You can then zoom in/out as preferred (it's a Google Maps interface).

It will show that list of all events within X number of miles, with links to those calendar submissions that will show details of the tournament that you are asking about.

I believe it's always been 2 . . . the reason being that the SCS standings wouldn't just be the same standings as the only tournament that happened in the state.

Once you get past having one piece of data, I've always been in full support of adding that State to the SCS and trying to then use that motivation to help increase the number of tournaments available.

The WPPR's awarded at the IFPAWC end up impacting the race for #1 more than it impacts things elsewhere down the rankings. With that tournament being the most important tournament in our world, the impact it has on our World Rankings has always been designed to be extremely meaningful, on purpose.

In my talks with Marcus, under WPPR v5.0 TPF should absolutely be in the top-top of IFPA endorsed events across the world. I believe there will be 4 or 5 'Full Value, 32 point base tournaments' at TPF for players to participate in (compared to it always having ONE 25 point annual to work off of). It's going to be INSANE, but well deserved based on the amount of effort being put in by TPF staff to run all the tournaments that will be held.

There's no additional WPPR bonus point advantage any other of the 2400+ IFPA endorsed tournaments have over the TPF, besides those 4 listed, and that's what we like best about the new system . . . it's all about how many players show up and what the format of the tournament ends up being.

No timetable yet on when we'll be live . . . but we're working hard to bring it out asap!

Yep!

Due to where the actual SCS finals are held, this is never something we would enforce.

Great example would be the Kansas/Missouri situation.

There is a group from Kansas City, Missouri, where their home state is 'technically' MO.

That player qualifies for both MO and KS through their play in the "Kansas City area" that will cross state lines all the time.

KS final is 10 minutes from his house.

MO final is over in St. Louis, 4 hours from his house.

To say that player HAS to play Missouri because he lives in Missouri isn't fair at all to that player IMO.

Additionally, we have no interest in verifying player addresses, so if this rule was something we tried to implement, a player could simply email us that their current location is "Kansas City, KS" instead of "Kansas City, MO", and they will have avoided this new rule. We don't require 3 months of gas bills or a driver's license proving their actual residence.

This is definitely easily enforced . . . I still just don't like the idea of making someone travel to a further away SCS if they have qualified for a closer SCS.

The fact that me personally as a player, if the SCS for Illinois was at Chuck's in St. Louis (just on the east side of Illinois), I would definitely prefer to make the drive to Wisconsin if it was Madison/Milwaukee, or Indiana it is was Lafayette for that particular year.

Since I don't want to drive, and I make the rules, I'm so leaving that open for ME

As for seeding the Nationals pot, the original SCS model actually had the entire $320 going straight to the National pool. The fact that we're taking less than 1/3rd to seed the National pot I think is pretty fair. I'm guessing most players wouldn't attend Nationals if they had to pay to get into the tournament, so we needed another way of motivating players to show up to make it a better competition. Definitely understand those that think it's crap though to 'steal' from the SCS pools to fund this.

89% of the SCS states were represented at Nationals (25 out of 28) last year.

Much better than I had thought too. I know Todd S didn't think we would get 10 out of the 28. I was thinking somewhere in the 14-16. The 25 really blew me away.

$100 is $100 any way you look at it. For this year tying in with the Pin-Masters, it means for $100 the player gets to enter both tournaments, instead of $100 for each.

The fact we filled up 16 spots in most of the states with the seeding of the National pot means that people didn't care enough to not show up for the SCS finals. That's good enough for me to continue doing things this way, and seeding a National pot.

I'm sure if 6/28 attended last year, you would have argued that the money did nothing to encourage National participation, so the money should really all just stay at the State level

I can appreciate your opinion. For me it was important to build the National Championship as an important cog in this wheel. The 31% take is a massive step down from the original 100% take that was originally planned.

Unless we see a massive protest where the SCS fields aren't filling up due to the fact we are trying seeding the Nationals pot . . . this is a decision we're sticking with, knowing full well there are 3 groups of people:

- People that think taking anything out of the State pool is bullshit
- People that think the percentage we're taking to seed the National prize pool is reasonable
- People that think we should be taking 100% of the SCS funds for Nationals, and holding a $10K tournament of champions

For those that share your opinion strong enough to not want to compete in the SCS, it's something we're willing to live with at this point.

Never got a volunteer to step up as the State Rep and handle the logistics of running the State Championship.

Either that, or everyone in Tennessee saw that we take $100 out of the prize pool for Nationals, and this is their protest

With us hoping to have a permanent home at the Pinball Hall of Fame for Nationals, I'm out there for the Amusement Expo every year for my 'real job', so we're hoping that Pin-Masters becomes a permanent fixture as part of the trade show week out there.

Hope to see you in Vegas, good luck in the Texas SCS!

No worries Josh. You may not care about my work schedule . . . but the events that I can fit into organizing with the wife and 2 kids at home HAVE to fit into my schedule, or the event simply doesn't happen.

The one thing we've learned through the years is that the ultimate opinion is whether a player supports what we're doing by attending.

See both Hilton and Josh attending their SCS finals means that I can thank them for their support

In theory that's a great idea (one we use for our World Championship as well).

Reality is that I can't make the National Championship an 'additional' pinball trip with respect to my personal pinball travels. Negotiating that additional hall pass from the wife just isn't going to happen until the kids are much older.

This is why we ended up doing it in Denver last year (we were already out there for the World Championship), and why it's likely to stay in Las Vegas (we're always out there for the Amusement Expo - myself, my brother and my dad).

The backup to the backup plan was to simply invite all the State Champs to my house to play for the National Championship. This was extremely close to reality last year when we ran into some conflicting dates with the Vegas show and Pinburgh.

Hilton - the winner or runner up only is also by design. The issue being that we want to apply pressure to the higher ranked players that they HAVE to perform at the State level. People like Trent or even myself and Zach, if we know that we can make nationals no matter what, and nobody else on the SCS field can, it renders the importance of the actual State Championship itself useless.

We originally wanted it to be "state champs only" so we wouldn't run into a situation where someone was the National Champ without actually being a State Champ.

The fact we filled 25/28 spots last year using only the Champ/runner up concept is showing me that it's working fine at the moment.

As for rotating Nationals that just isn't possible with my schedule, and it's a tournament we would always want to directly run ourselves (like our World Championship).

Josh

We're always listening and have felt that we've already compromised based on what we drew up as the original SCS plan.

Original plan was $320 all to the National pot, we adjusted to keeping $220 at the state level.

Original plan was State Champs only for Nationals, we adjusted to allowing the runner up to attend as an alternate.

Compromises have been and will continue to be made when the feedback we get warrants it. Your opinion is well stated. The number of people that share in your opinion is something I'm interested in seeing.

Good feedback Hilton, thanks.

Looking at the WI registration and seeing 25 out of the top 27 players in the standings choosing to participate in either the WI SCS or neighboring state is a great sign of people choosing to support the SCS under the current structure. We'll continue to look at these numbers across the states to see what kind of support percentages we're seeing under the current rules, and pivot from there.

If there was an alternative non-IFPA state championship with 100% payback within state and we saw the interest in the SCS decline, that would be a great data point to analyze.

I think you had made yourself pretty clear on that

What I've learned from over 15 years of running events is that support is support. I've seen plenty of event organizers over the years that have taken things over the line the wrong way and lost that support from the community.

State reps can go as deep down the SCS standings to fill the spots, but players not on the standings at all are not allowed to play.

Chris - tying it in with the IFPA Pin-Masters as a potential PAPA Circuit event annually is our hope to drawing people out for Nationals, along with access to the Amusement Expo for those interested. I completely agree that it's a tough sell to ask someone to put up all that cash to lose 4-0 in the first round and be done.

Definitely thought about that ... But would prefer the route to REALLY BIG prize pools to be through corporate sponsorship.

I don't want to potentially fracture the player base by forcing their hand of having to pay membership dues in order to enjoy the benefits of the IFPA, especially as we continue our crazy year over year growth rate. Something to analyze down the road though for sure ...

Dup post

It sounds like the fact the $100 seeding nationals being 'public knowledge' is the issue and that it's really semantics.

I propose for WI that they can keep all money for the prize pool, but that the prize pool has to pay for the State Champion trophy + shipping. Turns out that comes out to $100

You can use any information you want from our site to determine the qualifiers for your tournament. As long as those qualifiers can be 'anyone' it passes our rule of being an open event.

The guys in Portland do this with the Rose City Championships, whose standings closely resemble that of the Oregon SCS standings. They tweak their standings to only include the weekly events held within Portland, but I would be shocked if the field of players for both events weren't 90+% the same.

They will ken ... Although under the WPPR v5.0 system the value of the State Championships will go way down.

At only 16 players the base value will be 8 points instead of 25 from last year.

Andy - The golden rule is that you can't double dip WPPR's for one result.

So . . . for things like the SCS, PAPA Circuit, RCP Championships etc, the fact that the individual events along the way distribute WPPR's, the 'final' of these events can't also distribute WPPR's for all players. It has to be based only on NEW data (which would be just the finalists participating).

This is why the IFPA World Championship is based on the 64 players competing, and not the 30,000 players in the database.

This is NOT that case.

Anyone is allowed to run a 'series' or 'circuit' of events, and many organizers do.

An event qualifies if it is open for anyone to participate. As long as anyone had the chance to make the field of these series/circuit events, then we don't have an issue with it.

This would be completely acceptable.

If your goal is to focus on those players that grind out showing up for the various monthly tournaments and leagues, I would recommend setting up something similar to the Portland guys with the Rose City Championships.

We can create a custom ranking for any subset of events, so if you wanted to include just those various monthly tournaments in the standings, we can easily track that for you.

Joe Said does this for his DMV organization:
http://www.ifpapinball.com/rankings/custom_view.php?id=138

The Portland guys do it for the RCP Championships:
http://www.ifpapinball.com/rankings/custom_view.php?id=80

There's a group in Vancouver that does it just for their weekly Wednesday tournament:
http://www.ifpapinball.com/rankings/custom_view.php?id=79

We have the ability to cater our data to EXACTLY what you're looking to get out of it, in order to promote pinball in the best way you see fit for your area.

This is exactly why we're holding off on changing anything SCS to try and cater more to the local player base that gets out and plays a ton, versus those outsiders that come in for one annual event, drop their bomb, and go home.

The WPPR v5.0 formula will definitely help in this regard. How much it will help is left to be seen, but we will find out as the 2015 season takes shape.

It would absolutely be acceptable.

It wouldn't be what WE (IFPA) would run officially, but anyone is allowed to come up with criteria for a series of events.

I know many leagues that require attendance at X amount of sessions in order to be eligible for finals play. Something like this would be no different.

Trying to understand what Hilton is going after for the local player base, I would probably construct something like the "Madcity Championships", which would include all of those monthly events (Schwoeglers, Pooleys, etc), with the hope of growing additional 'monthly' events to be part of this circuit. All other events in Wisconsin wouldn't be included, especially the bigger/annual events, by design.

To Ryan's point, we (and by we, I mean my brother Zach) spends just as much time pushing PR on the SCS as I do trying to organize everything.

The media impressions generated are hitting all of these people that weren't aware pinball even existed (including most of the time the newscasters talking about it).

We're able to generate a huge impact because these media outlets read something about their city hosting the 'official' State Championship, where the winner can advance to LAS VEGAS for the National Championship . . . and in the end, it's a great story that gets them talking about pinball.

First piece just hit for 2014-15. Kudos to the Vermont players that actually woke up at 4am to be there for the live segment:

http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/story/d/story/vermonters-pursue-pinball-championship/30860/Hr95-x209U2U1F1djdrVeA

Here's a list of the media pieces from last year's inaugural SCS:

http://www.ifpapinball.com/scs/2013-14media

Hopefully we'll see many more pieces hit for this season.

Just so happens my dad did finish writing one up for us.

Available here:

http://www.ifpapinball.com/scs/2015release

Use at your leisure . . .

Josh

Fixed! thx

It is meant to say Country Directors with respect to how we're able to 'cover the globe' of competitive pinball.

Good to know our new packaging held up!

The Illinois one is also safe . . . so that's 2 for 37 (counting the Canadian Provinces).

It will be interesting to see if and where the growth pattern continues.

2013-14 season we had 28 states, 3 Canadian Provinces.

2014-15 season we had 33 states, 4 Canadian Provinces, added the European Championship Series, along with Championship Series in Australia, Austria, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

I'll be curious to see if any other countries step up to run a Championship Series within their borders.

ETA is ASAP

We're working on it, but definitely need to make sure everything works properly on our test site before going live with all of it.

The good news is we've been verifying tournament results as they come in, so we have a massive list ready to upload really quickly once we're clear to go.

Ken - That hiatus of uploading new results normally only lasts about a week into the new year.

We typically pick a date that we "close" the previous year rankings, and then use that information for SCS qualifiers and IFPA WC qualifiers.

You'll see an announcement on our site asking for all corrections, player profile combining, and all other 'random issues' that we correct on a daily basis, where the cut off was January 4th.

We have made corrections after January 4th that have changed the rankings, but did NOT change the SCS and IFPA WC qualifying standings. Normally this would also allow us to start uploading current year data . . . just not this year because of the new system still being tested.

An example would be, you realize that you're listed as Ken Kulig AND Kenneth Kulig, and you're only qualified in 24th in the WI SCS because of the Kenneth result not being included.

Either you:

a) Find that prior to January 4th, and we can go in and combine those accounts so you can be properly ranked for the WI SCS

b) Find that after January 4th, and you're stuck missing the cut because you weren't able to get those "Kenneth" points in time before the cutoff. However we would still fix it for the ongoing rankings into the current year and beyond

Hope that makes sense

Zach and Henderson ... Game 7 ... Spider-Man ball 3, Josh has 357 and playing still, zach in the low 100's with a ball to go.

Henderson had a 1.3bil on spidey the round before.

Seeding is based on end of year 2014 rankings, so the only thing stopping me from getting these emails out is reading Pinside and doing actual work instead. The server migration doesn't impact this at all

Social media was pretty solid at getting most of the top 2 finishers for each state. If I can't find them then that state rep can expect an email from me shortly.

Planning on a 10am practice time, with 11am start time.

With 37 potential participants, if we end up with 33 or more players that means we have 6 rounds instead of 5. In that case we may try to push the play-in matches back an hour earlier to get ahead of the game.

FWTG Final is NOT a separate event. It is being run in conjunction with the Pin-Masters that weekend. The highest Pin-Masters finisher that is "FWTG eligible" will win the pinball machine.

The FWTG Grand Final is tied to the Pin-Masters (held Friday-Sunday).

Nationals is a completely separate event (held Thursday).

The FWTG Grand Final eligible players are the winners of any of the FWTG Tournaments, as well as the spots given away via the FWTG League (preseason MVP and raffled off spots). Runners-up of the FWTG Tournaments are not eligible. I can't remember the number of potential participants but it's somewhere in the mid 20's. Current list is available here (http://www.ifpapinball.com/pinmasters/participants), with any FWTG players listed with a "***" after their name.

Nationals is 37 players max (33 SCS finalists and 4 PCS finalists). Those spots are available to the winner or the runner-up if the winner can't go. The highest finisher at Nationals not already in the IFPA World Championship field will win free entry into IFPA12.

The Canadian Provincial champs will be joining the State Championships in the US National Championship.

If I didn't run enough trophy parts for the next decade, I would call it the North American Championships, but we're going to leave it for now.

Should a Canadian win the US National Championship, we'll change the name

Daniele Acciari (Italy) over Markus Stix (Austria) in the final.

Acciari is the first IFPA European Pinball Champion!

I'll put up a blog post that we're now LIVE with the new site.

At that point the calendar submission and results submission modules will be turned back on.

There were a bunch of states where the State Rep submitted the wrong number of games played.

We'll make sure they are all corrected at some point

Josh

The 'official' launch parties get a pass because like Chris said I don't even get 30 days notice from them.

Any other unofficial launch parties have to follow the 30 day advanced notice rule.

We're excited to announce the initial game list for both the IFPA Pin-Masters and 2014-15 US National Pinball Championship.

Nationals will be played on Thursday March 26th, with the IFPA Pin-Masters starting the following day. A reminder that registration for the IFPA Pin-Masters closes March 1st.
Here is the tentative game list. Please note that this list is subject to change, and that at maximum, only 9 games will be used for the IFPA Pin-Masters.

Bank-a-Ball (Gottlieb – 1965)
Cross Town (Gottlieb – 1966)
Old Chicago (Bally – 1976)
Evel Knievel (Bally – 1977)
Rock Star (Gottlieb – 1978)
Firepower (Williams – 1980)
Royal Flush Deluxe (Gottlieb – 1983)
Elvira and the Party Monsters (Bally – 1989)
Indianapolis 500 (Bally – 1995)
Medieval Madness (Williams – 1997)
Tron LE (Stern – 2011)

Our policy is always 'wait as long as you want'.

We've seen too many issues of players going to the bathroom on purpose when they see that the only available choices are games they don't want to play. We've also seen people intentionally slow playing on the current game, just waiting and watching for the next game they want to play to open up.

We've also seen the reverse where you know someone wants to pick the game you are playing, so you can just stay up there trapping up and intentionally taking your time to make sure that other player has to choose something maybe they don't want to play.

Ultimately that kind of rule instantly favors the faster playing machines because they are naturally bound to be the games that are open for play the most often.

We have no interest in any of those shenanigans, so players can wait to play anything they want.

Being someone that has taken one of those unexpected potty breaks when the only game open out of a bank of 9 games is the game you just played . . . that leaves the next game choice entirely to chance for whichever games opens up next.

NO THANKS