(Topic ID: 185444)

IFPA Charging Fees for Tournaments in 2018


By Eric_S

2 years ago



Topic Stats

  • 1,607 posts
  • 166 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 1 year ago by TheLaw
  • Topic is favorited by 19 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

There have been 36 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

f5f.gif
homer simpson brain xray (resized).png
taytay.gif
pasted_image (resized).png
20171223_203010 (resized).jpg
IFPA (resized).png
ifpa (resized).jpg
wpprizer_build (resized).PNG
IMG_2821 (resized).JPG
IMG_2805 (resized).JPG
DonationJar (resized).png
IMG_2797 (resized).PNG
IMG_4030 (resized).JPG
towelie_tough_guy (resized).jpg
towelie-no_you_are (resized).png
IMG_5752 (resized).PNG

You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider ifpapinball.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

-6
#4 2 years ago
Quoted from Eric_S:

This seems like a huge cash grab for the top players at the expense of everyone else.

It ultimately depends on how the $1 is charged.

If the location sponsors the endorsement fee, there's no expense to the players.

If the 'winners' of the event fund the endorsement fee out of the pot, then it's the top players that end up deferring some of their winnings for a chance to win it later on. Again, casual players see no impact.

If the TD charges an EXTRA $1 per participant for the event, then yes it becomes the masses funding the top players.

If a TD allows players to opt out that aren't interested then that player won't be impacted.

Plenty of options and flexibility designed into this process. Ultimately we will see how it goes and repeal/replace from there if necessary.

#8 2 years ago
Quoted from Eric_S:

How does this fee encourage more competitive pinball?

We don't look at it as encouraging/discouraging. If our 3500 events per year changes to 2000 non-endorsed events and 1500 endorsed events, the same amount of competitive pinball is being played. We're basically separately out a group of those events that wish to be endorsed and award WPPRs.

27
#29 2 years ago

Step 1 - try and see what happens

Step 2 - we see if Hilton is right or wrong

Step 3 - repeal/replace WPPRcare the following year back to the old way

I earned nothing from Nationals in 4 years because I've never made it. We plan on paying out all 16 star finalists (not just the top 3) under this program.

The one thing I know about this program ... it won't be padding my pockets in any way.

#30 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

so if everyone opts out, whom pays for the event to be sanctioned? If only the winner pays $1 does that mean they get .5 points for winning and all good?

Correct. The TD would submit the results into us a 1 player tournament, owe the IFPA $1.

That one player would be crowned the WI SCS champ, win $.75 and get to attend nationals to compete for more prize money.

#exploited

(Actually you need at least two events to qualify for SCS, so that would be $2, but you're on the right path. We then only have two results that need reviewing and approval on our side. WIN-WIN!)

#57 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

How much money would WI have brought in and then donates to WI SCS and Nationals?

I'm under the assumption we'll see an attrition rate here. There will be a shift of organizers that go from weekly reporting to monthly reporting (so you only pay one time for every 4 events). But we do have that data from 2016:

Wisconsin pool was $2598 . . . $1948 went to WI SCS, $650 to Nationals.

Here would have been the payouts for the top 16 State finalists (which will be a mandatory payout structure for all states):

1st - $584.61
2nd - $350.76
3rd - $233.84
4th - $155.90
5th through 8th - $77.95 each
9th through 16th - $38.97 each

Quoted from Whysnow:

Seems like a much easier and fair way is to charge each player an annual IFPA membership fee. $5 tracks your rankings for the year and your rankings only count after you have paid the fee; due on Jan 1st (or within 10 days of your first tournament being played).

This is logistically far more challenging for us. Right now we have an interface that deals directly with TD's, and this will simply be an extension of the results submission process. We can easily stage events through that same process we do now for approvals. Dealing with individual registration of 50,000 players and building that process from scratch is a far bigger nightmare.

We will definitely find out if what we're doing works or not . . . and we'll go from there. This whole process will be a Staples Easy Button press from being repealed if it tanks. We're at the points of having seen the player base grow to the level it has to 'play with our food' a bit and try some things. NOBODY (myself included) knows how it's going to play out.

#60 2 years ago
Quoted from cppinball:

If you need to charge $1 for cost or administration fees im ok that. To collect money to give to the elite players in each state or national event I'm against that.

Not that I care to ever profit off of IFPA work, but for tax/legal reasons we have to set this up intentionally to not keep ANY of the funds. It all has to be paid back 100% or we end up in some sticky situations.

#65 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

What does that payout structure look like Josh? 12k to First? 8k to second?

Nationals payout structure would actually not change much at the top at all. Our plan would be to pay ALL SPOTS (versus the top 8 we do now), so even the person finishing in last place gets some of their travel expenses paid for by attending.

24
#69 2 years ago
Quoted from cppinball:

SO GAMBLING PAYOUTS ARE OK BUT NOT ADMINISRATION FEE?

Pinball isn't gambling . . . so said my dad in 1976

#71 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

give us the 2016 nationals payout then, with 100% assumed participation.

1st 1000 (plus NIB game)
2nd 2000
3rd 1500
4th 1000
5th-8th 500
9th-16th 250
17-32nd 200
33rd-49th 200

#73 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

Safe to assume my large charity event is exempt form this shenanigans and IFPA waives any BS fee?
or do you also want to take money away from Cancer patients so you can bring more 'prestige' to pinball?

Charity events are welcome to run as non-point events, or if they feel they can raise more funds by opting in to being an endorsed event by motivating more players to attend, that will be their choice.

I've spoken with most of the popular pinball charities over the last few months so they have been aware of this coming for a while.

#76 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

buck up buttercup. It is the right thing to do.
It cant be all that difficult. Heck, Pinside has the ablity to take individual donations form users and immediately give them a red heart and other features of the site open up.

I believe Robin and crew work on this full time? Or at least 'enough time' that it's far more of a commitment than I'm willing to put in.

I'll stay bucked up and put this on the to-do list for 'someday not today'

Quoted from Whysnow:

I am guessing it will be too late to just simply hit the reset button after 1 year.

Click - approve . . . instead of Click - confirm payment - approve.

#91 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

if you drop to 1/3 of your total events in a year, then I doubt you will get those TDs back.

If we drop to 1/3rd we're still at over 1000 events in the US annually. That's not necessarily a bad number for us.

If we nuke it and the TD's don't come back . . . we'll just have to wait and see. I fully anticipate a certain level of attrition and felt the landscape has grown enough to support us experimenting with this. If we blow EVERYTHING UP and competitive pinball burns to the ground, then we'll start back up from scratch like we did 11 years ago

#96 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

I dont understand what you are saying? If an event is a non-point event, doesnt that more accurately mean non-IFPA?

Correct . . . non-points means NOT IFPA endorsed. Many events already run this way, team leagues especially that have been incredibly popular.

Most players out there see absolutely no value in the WPPR system as they just play for fun, so for them this is meaningless. They can continue to play for fun, and not earn any rankings points that they didn't care anything about in the first place.

Now if you DO care about WPPR's . . . it gets more 'interesting' for how this will play out.

#100 2 years ago
Quoted from TomGWI:

So here is the question. Is the bottom line of the SCS to make the top 16 in each state money or is it to crown a state champion?

Motivating players to MAKE the top 16 allows us to capture the interest of more players. In Illinois there was a huge level of interest to claim those 12th-16th seeded spots, with the understanding that most likely nobody was going to beat Zach (myself included as Hilton made sure to rub salt in that wound)

Focusing on being able to take those players fighting for the 12th-16th seeds and awarding them for making the cut is a strategy we're taking with this approach.

When it backfires, we'll change back.

#102 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

curious if IFPA is now starting championship series for other countries also?
or is this new fee structure only for US and CAN based competitions and everyone else gets to be ranked for free?

Check out the Championship Series section on our website. I think we have 7 or 8 that currently run.

The fee structure is only for US/CAN, as there are tax/legal issues that I was made aware of from our legal council and tax accountant. Everyone outside of the US/CAN gets to be ranked for free.

#106 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

I wish you good luck.

Thanks Hilton!

It should be an interesting experiment.

#110 2 years ago
Quoted from alveolus:

this decision will create a tremendous administrative, logistical and awkward headache. The idea of continuously stalking people to "fork up your dollar!" is unappealing.

When people register you can have the sidepot registration sheet.

Everyone that signs up for the free event can opt to also register for the endorsement fee to be ranked.

At the end of the event, you take the 20 players that participated, remove anyone that didn't care about being ranked, and submit the results as you do now made up of whoever did opt-in for the WPPR's.

Logistically that is far easier than the IFPA creating an automated system chasing down 50,000 players for payment. (for me - since under my process above I don't actually do ANY work)

#113 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

how do you deal with certain counties in states which prohibit paying in or paying out for competitive pinball (ie. MGC) ?

MGC can rope it into the show fee they have now, and if they want to opt-in to having their events count for WPPR's, then that's up to them to pay that fee on behalf of those that play. It would become another 'show expense' for them.

As far as paying back to WI, we would likely do what we've done for our World Championship tournaments. Explicitly announce NO PRIZE MONEY FOR WI SCS. I then invite the top 16 finalists over to my house after it's done, and gift them with a certain about of money for being 'nice guys'.

#122 2 years ago
Quoted from Eric_S:

I would strongly suggest taking some time to revisit this decision and consider if the State and National tournaments merit such an upheaval to every other tournament that IFPA sanctions.

It's been considered for years. We make no quick decisions regarding anything we do. EVERY decision we've made has come with large amounts of hate, and large amounts of support. We see this as a similar reception at this point.

We will revisit this throughout the 2018 season once we see how it's going. I have no problem repealing WPPRcare if it's not meeting the goals we want it to meet.

#123 2 years ago
Quoted from TomGWI:

Perhaps, as Donovan alluded to, you are trying to get the number of IFPA events which are more frequent or run in a garage out of the ranks. If that is the case, well played.

That was certainly one of the 'healthy consequences' we had on our Pros/Cons list. It was put on both lists

-5
#125 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

how does this work for the event point value and structure?
Lets say 20 people show up for an event. 5 people opt to pay in $1. Those five people finish 4, 5, 8, 12, and 20th.
When submitting, do I only include them as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?
I assume the event is only worth 2.5 points if grading at 100%

You have this 100% correct.

#128 2 years ago
Quoted from cppinball:

QUESTION . IFPA Will collect money and then send each state their portion. If over $600 they will need a SS # and send the TD a check. Then the TD Will have to pay out this money from gambling or "prize money " while playing pinball. Not sure how you state handles gambling or prize disbursing . I dont want to sign for a check that im now responsible for paying taxes or accounting for the gambling winnings in check form. Legal and tax issues? Still willing to support the payment just they might to rethink the purpose.

Chuck - I can talk with you offline about our process. We have things in place for this to at least 'work for now' and if we do run into issues then we'll either blow the whole thing up or find an alternate path.

Good thing for you is that I run Illinois, so you don't have to worry about any of this personally

#131 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

Why the heck announce this on April 1st? What was the logic behind that?

That's just me being an asshole . . . I couldn't help myself

#133 2 years ago
Quoted from alveolus:

If your primary goal is to make IFPA's role easier, then I think you'll succeed.

#hiddenagendas

-4
#134 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

so, your new rankings wont be a very good reflection of skill if continually the top players opt to not pay in?
For extremes, lets assume an event with 110 people that grades at 100%, where the top 10 finishers all opt to not pay in for your fee.
That means the 11th place finisher is now #1 and gets big ranking points?

Yep . . . if the top players opt out, then they aren't "our" top players.

That 11th place finisher is going to LOVE THIS

#136 2 years ago
Quoted from Russell:

What is the anticipated impact on "Superleague?" We don't have this in CO, but I saw one recently in Tucson, AZ. Just curious.

Every player would have to be accounted for in the endorsement fee for them to count in the standings, so ultimately that will depend on the TD.

#142 2 years ago
Quoted from TomGWI:

I haven't seen a Sharpe in WI for years. Why is that? Oh yeah, MGC no longer gives out cash payouts.

LOL their names are Colin and Charlotte

#145 2 years ago
Quoted from TomGWI:

I thought it was PAPA

Oh don't worry, I'm flying back home during PAPA for Charlotte's birthday, and then flying back out to Pittsburgh a second time during the weekend.

#ilovemykids

#151 2 years ago
Quoted from HighProtein:

Why doesn't the IFPA try doing this first let's say this year?
Why not the IFPA do one if not all of these campaigns to fund the prize seeding for next year?
Why doesn't the IFPA instead get more sponsorships and try new ways of funding prize pools outside of TDs?

Getting more sponsorships is the one thing we're doing most behind the scenes. One does not simply "get more sponsorships". We're able to get some industry support to cover our operating expenses, but haven't been able to land anything substantial to be able to support the player base through money raised.

There's a portion of the nation that's going to be okay with this through the other options. Rather than not accepting those people that are cool with this plan, we would prefer to see those TD's that aren't in agreement choose the option of this path if that's the only way it would interest them.

I have no interest in having a perpetual GoFundMe campaign to try and support these State and National prize pools.

#152 2 years ago
Quoted from frolic:

Seems like there are so many ways to make this fee invisible to players.

Yes, most of the TD's I've talked to are simply taking it out of the pot of that event.

For players that never place at the top literally nothing changes.

For those that win the most often, they end up 'paying out' the most to these State/National pools . . . but they are also most likely to be given an opportunity at earning that money back at State/Nationals.

#156 2 years ago
Quoted from MobRoller:

So whats going to be happening on the North side of the border? Are we looking at doing Provincials separately now? Are we paying $1 CAD or USD?

It's $1 CAD.

The amount pulled for Nationals will be based on USD, with the remainder going to the provincial championships. Depending on the exchange rate it means Canada will be funding >25% towards Nationals ... unless the exchange rate flips.

#205 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

so Josh, is WI now exempt due to legal reasons also?

Nope. We can roll this out as IFPA administrative expenses for those states where we have an issue.

I can bill MGC the labor it takes for us to review their calendar submission and results submission. I'm guessing the bill will come out to however many players they submit to the system

#206 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

If anyone out there has and can share the current algorithms for how IFPA calculates and awards points, it would be appreciated.
We are looking into setting up a system that works for all the WI players/TDs and it would be nice to just see the current math behind the ratings and degradation based on strength of player and # of players for an event rather than attempting to reverse engineer it form scratch.
For example, the obvious base value based on number of player is easy.
The TGP is easy.
The more difficult to calculate is the addition to the base based on strength of player and the calculation of player strength.
The also more difficult is understanding the curve of point value and how it changes based on # of players in an event.

Hilton I can give you all of that info. I believe we even have it posted on our site. If you want our entire historical database of WI results I can provide that as well so you have a solid place to start. You could then move forward however you see fit up there

#217 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

Cons: no longer IFPA ranked to hunt a magical number (which holds no real value outside of the top 50 players). Sure it is fun, but does not appear to be a major driver in WI pinball.

Exactly the reason why this isn't a big deal

-4
#221 2 years ago
Quoted from Cornelius:

This conversation has taken a turn for the fascinating! I went from thinking Whysnow was yelling at clouds to feeling like the guy has a point.
I am a little concerned with how IFPA seems to be acting like "well, we've done the research" (along with the snide, belittling of their userbase both here and on other, shittier pinball forums) when it's clear that they didn't really do ALL the research if Whysnow and many other TDs were left out of said "research".
I dunno. Weird. Should be interesting, seeing how this all unfolds.

I'm not pretending to know if this is going to work. I honestly have NFI.

What I'm willing to do is conduct a 12 month science experiment to see what happens. Once we're halfway through the 2018 season I'll probably have a good idea the direction we will take things for 2019.

Seeing how it all unfolds is exactly the thing I'm interested in.

-9
#225 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

Curious if with this new format all states will be afforded the opportunity to host Nationals?
or will it still be played on crappy quality games that are set up poorly in order to match up with your travel schedule Josh?

Until my kids are older or I get a divorce Nationals will follow me wherever my work trip takes me.

#230 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

looking forward to the info from Josh and very appreciative of him being willing to send it along.

The formula for calculating first place value and then the distribution of points from 2nd through last place is available here:

https://www.ifpapinball.com/menu/ranking-info/

If you want the full database of event results for WI shoot me an email. I can query that table and export an excel sheet for you to work with.

#237 2 years ago
Quoted from SHOOTTHEPYRAMID:

love the ifpa, and am very appreciative of all you do but admitting you dont know if this will work, referring to a drastic change of a point system which many care deeply about as a science experiment (that will last a whole year) and a readiness to abandon or completely change it halfway through are not the correct ways to convince an already hesitant crowd that this change will be beneficial.

To be serious for one second, I do believe this will help our main goal at IFPA:

"The objective of the International Flipper Pinball Association (IFPA) is to elevate the awareness and visibility of pinball across the globe and generate media coverage and corporate backing to bring the sport of competitive pinball back into the spotlight."

I'm not afraid to be proven wrong but the long term goal of how I see this going for the sport in my head is a positive one. I've also never been afraid to try stuff that I believe push the sport forward, and this is one of those moments where I think the timing it right to try.

Most of the changes we have implemented in 11 years have done two things every time:

1) caused a huge uproar over people not being happy with what we were planning to implement

2) ultimately pushed things forward for the sport in a positive way (at least I believe that)

#240 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

also, if the spread sheet has the full equation to go through and calculate event value and point distribution, then that is even better.

I believe it had dynamic points and linear points for each finishing position of every event, but that's the best detail we have available. (Should work for you I would think)

#247 2 years ago
Quoted from SHOOTTHEPYRAMID:

i think you are unfairly assuming that because more and more people are playing, that the sport is being "elevated". If all of your changes admittedly cause an uproar amongst veteran players, perhaps they are not as elevating as you have been led to believe by our sports growing numbers.

I'm assuming that we won't have more people playing in IFPA endorsed events in 2018, but still think our long term goal of elevating the sport is on target.

I don't believe for a second that elevating the sport is strictly based on the number of players that play competitively.

#251 2 years ago
Quoted from SHOOTTHEPYRAMID:

define elevating.
you admit that changes always cause an uproar, admit that less people will play in 2018 but are convinced the game is being elevated? it seems to me like less veterans will be convinced that competitive pinball is a good use of their time and money, and new players will come less frequently due to being required to pay for the higher ups having a bigger prize pool.
as someone who lives in a city with a big pinball scene i can tell you straight up that it is not a lack of new competitors inhibiting the growth of competitive pinball, it is the amount of players who lose interest in competing after only a few months once they see that the point system is extremely difficult to understand, mostly arbitrary, and constantly changing.

Elevating IMO - finding ways for competitive pinball to be in the public consciousness of people in the world. We do this through trying to land as many media impressions as we can, and introducing competitive pinball to world that doesn't know it exists (not necessarily new players). We're building our brand to execute Championships at the State, National and International levels and feel that the garnering of this media attention becomes an easier sell as the stakes get bigger. Every big media piece we've ever had has led to calls with production companies for potential reality shows, and an interest in taking a deeper dive into our world. I would like to someday hit on one of these, and am focusing our brand to try and land that fish at some point.

You seem to assume that all TD's will be requiring players to pay an additional $1 to be ranked. I can tell you that for my tournaments we will be instituting a Winner's Tax. The endorsement fee will be coming out of the 1st place prize.

So in a 40 player tournament for example of $5 each , if the prizes were going to be $100/$80/$60, I would implement the Winner's Tax. The winner would get paid $60. Second place will still get $80! That way out of the 40 people that participate only one person is pissed, and that's the winner. Everyone else gets a free ride, so don't win and you'll be good to go.

If players are already losing interest in the WPPR system within a few months because of how confusing it is, then it's likely this change won't have any impact in your area . . . seems like we've already lost those people?

#254 2 years ago
Quoted from ZenTron:

Didn't WI have an SCS this year?

They absolutely did NOT, and David Daluga did NOT represent them at Nationals

#257 2 years ago
Quoted from DNO:

Aren't there any Golden Tee machines in WI? To play online, you must pay an extra dollar, and you are elegible to win prizes and cash. Curious how this would be any different.

Wisconsin is one of our (Raw Thrills) most successful states for Big Buck Hunter tournaments.

Sarah Erlandson is like the Keith Elwin of BBH and has won the women's championship pretty much every year we hold it. She's insanely good.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/land-of-10000-stories/2015/10/06/big-buck-hunter-sara-erlandson-beldenville/73461834/

#261 2 years ago
Quoted from dmbjunky:

Josh am I right in assuming IFPA selfie leagues are done? They were a great tool to get friends to try competitive pinball. It was neat to see their names on the world leaderboard.
I guess I understand if this new rule is to get rid of smaller IFPA events and lighten the load for you.

No, selfie leagues continue. We run ours in Chicago at Level 257 every month.

This change won't be a big deal for us. We will have the winners pay the bill so players that play for fun like my mom have literally no impact on their tournament experience and still get to enjoy earning the WPPR points they are interested in.

I definitely understand other TD's not wanting to make the winners of the events pay this load. Personally I think taxing ONLY the players that stand to benefit from this program is the best way to go.

#262 2 years ago
Quoted from Hi-Fi:

90% of the people that play in our local bar leagues don't give a crap about IFPA points and have zero chance of winning any of this proposed prize pool. Asking them to subsidize the prize pool for a select few players is total BS!

This is exactly what we're looking for. If 90% of your players don't care about IFPA points then you can and should continue as a non-IFPA event without any negative impact.

Why even bother doing it now if so many players don't care?

#265 2 years ago
Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

What about fees to send money

Working that out. Worst case is we will sponsor the lost fees if we have to take in gross versus net funds.

#273 2 years ago
Quoted from SHOOTTHEPYRAMID:

we will be instituting a Winner's Tax.
The endorsement fee will be coming out of the 1st place prize.
don't win and you'll be good to go.
trying to convince people your goal is to elevate the sport, while at the same time telling them the best way to not be effected by the rule change is to avoid winning...now ive heard it all.
thats like the commisioner of baseball coming out and saying " whoever wins the world series, has to pay a portion of their winnings to other teams who didnt even make the playoffs, this will encourage more people to play baseball, as well as elevate the sport itself, if anyone doesnt like the new rules, just dont win games"
wanting to win pinball is why i play competitive pinball, not for money or ifpa points. so youre attitude of "this all makes sense and is fair if you just avoid winning" is counter intuitive. please rethink this rule change.

Consider it deferred winnings from the people that stand to benefit the most from this rule change.

If you only tax the winner or winners out of the prize pool, a majority of the casual players that don't win are not impacted.

I'm not a fan of the poor funding the rich here. I'm a fan of the rich funding themselves with their own winnings.

#317 2 years ago
Quoted from MobRoller:

Ok so using your math and example (Eric Stone) 180/20,000 = .009 aka 1%

Actually the true math for 2017 . . .

9297 players competed in the SCS/PCS. There were 47 finals, with 752 players competing. Ends up impacting the top 8% of players.

#324 2 years ago
Quoted from pinballkyle:

Please spend more time thinking about a better way to implement this to make it more fair for the majority of people who support you - NOT the minority 1% who attends your state events....

It's all those weekly and monthly bar leagues that have brought exposure to the IFPA with so many new players coming in.

We as tournament directors of these leagues work tirelessly, we do not get paid for our work. We do not ask for money hosting events that bring you exposure.

We ask for nothing. Pleas rethink your decision.

We've been thinking about it for 3 years. After PAPA implemented their Circuit fee for the 2017 season, and the feedback wasn't terrible, we decided to move forward with a plan that's been sitting on the shelf for years.

As a tournament director myself, I work tirelessly without pay as well. We have no problem continuing to list these events on our calendar if the TD isn't interested in endorsing the event for WPPR points. It would simply be a non-points event, which we currently list on our calendar (B division, Youth Division, etc).

If the players are interested in being ranked, then they will communicate that to the TD and you can find a way to work it out. If being ranked isn't interesting to that player base then it doesn't matter.

Leagues don't have to submit weekly, and can instead reporting monthly, quarterly or annually if they want to avoid paying more endorsement fees.

#332 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

this math does not seem to add up...

In WI alone we had around 500 uniquie players in 2016. Only 16 of them qualified for SCS. Only 1 of them makes it to nationals.

Under this program all of the finalists in every state are winners. It's not all funneled to Nationals. Most of the funds stay in state.

#333 2 years ago
Quoted from SHOOTTHEPYRAMID:

well, have fun when every TD chooses to submit annually, and youre stuck with a bunch of boring, litigious, paperwork weeks before the SCS starts.

We do boring, litigious, paperwork 365 days a year righ tnow

If all the TD's submit annually it would be fine with us. Instead of processing 52 events for a weekly event we would process 1 event. It's the same amount of time every time, so it's literally 98% time saver on our time.

The great part is those TD's can still PLAY weekly or monthly, so the 'competition' and getting together for the social aspect of playing doesn't change at all. The only thing that changes is the reporting to the IFPA.

#335 2 years ago
Quoted from pinballkyle:

Yeah...there is no way our league is going to fork over 700 bucks a year for this elitist venture.

How many players are in your league? No way it's 700??

There are many ways to SUBSTANTIALLY lower this fee. You can have an opt-in for the players that are interesting in being ranked, and allow players to opt-out that don't care about being ranked. You can always submit results annually or semi-annually or quarterly instead of however you do it now (I'm assuming monthly?).

#337 2 years ago
Quoted from CrazyLevi:

Like I said before, maybe the answer is splitting it into pro/amateur.

There's a stage 2 that involves this kind of system, based on how the implementation goes in 2018.

#341 2 years ago
Quoted from pinlink:

Why not listen to the feedback and consider different options? Or consider repealing this "science experiment" all together? Is it just ego at this point?

I listen to and value all feedback.

If you search every IFPA announcement over the past 10 years, there's a LARGE amount of push back, hatred, we're ruining pinball, etc. that is posted. We also receive messages from people that have supported those changes in the past.

There is no announcement we make that will make everyone happy. Despite the lead balloon feeling on Pinside, the feedback I've received on this is well past 51% positive.

The huge amount of negative feedback have been from the people that play the most, and would have to pay the most. There are options to work with here to lower those fees based on reporting choices.

The average number of events that a player in the US played in 2016 . . . 4.8 events.

That's $4.80 'on average' that a player will pay to fund this.

If we announced this as a $4.80 player fee every year, I'm guessing it would have been better received?

We're in essence doing this, but forcing those that play more to either fund that additional participation, or adjust the reporting processes in place to make their communities more comparable to other communities.

#346 2 years ago
Quoted from Taxman:

Can you enlighten us? It might help people make better decisions if they have all of the information.

It ultimately depends on the attrition rate.

If out of the 3500 endorsed events we had, it drops 90%, there's a path for us to keep that 10% and feed those results into our "PRO" rankings. We can then bring back the 90% events that were run as 'non-points' events, and feed those results into a separate "AMATEUR" ranking.

The "PRO" would then continue to run with the endorsement fee. The "AMATEUR" would not have any endorsement fee.

It's a decent amount of effort to set that up, so we want to wait and see where that percentage actually lands. If we see that 80% of events are still choosing to be endorsed, then created an amateur rankings system for such a small group doesn't make sense.

#349 2 years ago
Quoted from pinballkyle:

Ok maybe I'm getting confused.

We get 55 people on average monthly.

Everyone pays $10 bucks to get in at every event. Isn't it the way it works is that for every event you take a buck from each person?

Or is it just a buck for every person who registers annually?

If that's the case it would be like $70 bucks a year which we would have no problem funding at all. Let me know ifpapinball

It's all based on submissions to the IFPA.

We have a monthly league in Chicago, but we report results ONCE PER YEAR for our season. That means that instead of paying 35 members X 12 months ($420), we are going to pay $35 for the year.

It's completely up to you as the organizer how you should proceed in handling this. If you submit once per year, you would owe the IFPA $55 for that one results submission. If you submit results semi-annually it would be $110.

#351 2 years ago
Quoted from pinballkyle:

Well that is a HUGE difference! I think you should make that very very clear. I have no problem with that at all, going the yearly route! ifpapinball

We're making it clear here

It's why we've posted the details 9 months in advance. If some things aren't clear we can use these upcoming months to help make it more clear for everyone.

#373 2 years ago
Quoted from epthegeek:

What does the yearly total submission VS monthly submissions do for points? Does the single submission value out at 12x the WPPR points? Or do you come up shorter because you only submitted once?

I'm assuming you're just expecting submission of the final standings for the season, so it would be 1 event of (X) people worth the standard amount of points for that size event. So if the league players are trying to climb the WPPR ladder, they'd rather submit each monthly (which would cost the original assumed price) -- no?

It really depends on the TGP of the league meetings.

If you're playing 100% TGP events every month, then you leave a ton of WPPR value on the table because you're already at max TGP.

If you're playing 12 events that are each 8% TGP, you literally get the same amount of WPPR points submitting annually (at 96% TGP).

Ultimately this is the push-pull that TD's will have to decide with their player base. Do you submit 4 times a year because that lines up with TGP maximization, and lowers the percentage that we take with the endorsement fee? In our league we meet every month, but only submit once per year. We leave TGP on the table but we "don't care". We will NOT be sending $420 to the IFPA, we'll be sending $35.

If the players want to climb the ladder by submitting more events for more points, that's the CHOICE to be made by those individual player groups. The endorsement fee comes into play based on how that community wants to proceed, but we're totally flexible in accommodating how that community wants to report those results.

#409 2 years ago
Quoted from pinballkyle:

Hopefully IFPA can revise their announcement that will curb some of the negative feedback.

If the announcement had more detail, and listed the annual option I wouldn't have been upset, and it would have been a positive read, not a negative one...

I just added this as a major bullet point to the announcement:

- Fees will only be collected based on when results are submitted. For example, a 20 player event that meets monthly is welcome to submit results monthly, and pay $240 for the year. However, that event is also welcome to run their own series of events every month and then report those final results to the IFPA annually instead. This would result in an endorsement fee of $20 for the year. We leave that flexibility up to the organizers and players within each individual community.

#414 2 years ago
Quoted from AlbanyTim:

I'm late to the thread. Basically, a ifpa league is a multi-day tournament, therefore only one fee is assessed at the time of score submission at the end of the league. Is that correct?

Correct. So players can be "playing every week" for an entire year, but only get assessed the endorsement fee once per year at the end of the season.

-2
#417 2 years ago
Quoted from Eric_S:

I know a good thing when I see it, and IFPA has a good thing going. Don't screw it up.

We don't plan on screwing it up. We plan on making it better.

There's a path here where I see 3000 "AMATEUR" events per year, along with 500 "PRO" events per year feeding those systems concurrently.

Having an SCS at the "PRO" level for all the cash and glory, but also having an "AMATEUR" State Championship for recognition but without the issues of the cash at play. Inviting some players out to an "AMATEUR" National Championship isn't against the realm of possibility as well if we're already out there and setup for the "PRO" event to also take place.

The 'have your cake and eat it too' is my mission on this. Those that strictly want to play for fun can earn AMATEUR WPPR's and avoid all the fee nonsense. Those that want to take it more seriously can participate in "PRO" events at their choosing for PRO WPPR's.

Figuring out how to piece it all together will be the challenge once 2018 hits and we see how the 'market' reacts.

#420 2 years ago
Quoted from ForceFlow:

Sounds reasonable to me.

Trying my best

#431 2 years ago
Quoted from MobRoller:

Is this not in direct correlation with the amount of WPPRs a player will receive? More WPPRs if per event vs annually. Just to clarify.

I posted earlier (can't find it), but it depends on the situation (TGP related).

If an organizer is submitting 12 events per year each worth 8% TGP, they can submit one result annually for 96% TGP and pay the fee ONE TIME. The WPPR points earned would be exactly the same.

If TD's are running higher percentage TGP events, you get into the situation where you are wasting TGP (you can't go above 100% value).

So my monthly in Chicago for example is 32% TGP. I can submit quarterly instead of monthly, cut my IFPA fees by 66%, and grade out to 96% every 3 months.

If my tournament was 60% TGP, I would be "leaving WPPR's on the table" if I submitted every 3 months. 80% TGP worth of value would be wasted.

Hopefully that makes sense?

#438 2 years ago
Quoted from Frax:

Grant Mortenson is one of the absolutely best players I've ever played against...he's ranked 436th!

https://www.ifpapinball.com/players/compare.php?p1=4&p2=549

Love me some Grant

#442 2 years ago
Quoted from Taxman:

So I would not know if I wanted to be considered Pro or Amateur since I do not feel I am near as good as the pros I also like the chance to play with them. The fact that some times I can hold my own. I feel playing with better players makes you better and would not want to dilute the experience. But I also don't travel so I won't see most pro events and want to just play as much as possible.

The systems would run concurrently.

For women they can compete in 'open' events, and 'women only' events. They earn points under each system totally separately, have two different rankings, two different resumes, etc.

This would run the same way. You wouldn't have to choose which list to be on. All the events you play in that don't pay the fee to get endorsed on the "PRO" system will earn those points on the "AMATEUR" system.

So you could have a profile where you are 7000th on the PRO system, and 267th on the AMATEUR system, with completely different sets of events on your resume under each system.

-3
#454 2 years ago
Quoted from shimoda:

A yearly fee of $4.80 for those wishing to get IFPA points would be fine! Heck, round it up to $5 and tell us where to send it. Really can't see how this will grow pinball...just the pockets of the winners and to some degree state finalists. Also, just because some decisions in the past that have had negative pushback might have long-term positive outcomes doesn't mean every one will.

Pay your fee $1 at a time to the TD of the 5 events you choose to play in.

Or participate in our "Amateur" events in 2019 at no charge, should we choose to go that route.

#457 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

Is there now the ability to run "amateur" events and participate as an amatuer and still get IFPA tracking, but just not get "Pro" status or ability to play in SCS and Nationals?

Sounds like we can now elect not to pay and that just means no SCS play or Nationals play???

Similar to the Women's Rankings it will have to be started from scratch.

ONLY Amateur (non-points) events would be included, so it would be a completely separate system. The #1 ranked Amateur player would add the same A-WPPR's to the pot that KME does for the system today.

It would start day 1 with everyone ranked as #1, and we would build from there from the ground up.

Every time we've worked ourselves into creating a separate Amateur WPPR system the interest has been next to nothing. Perhaps the endorsement fee will be the thing that will trigger this interest and allow us to cater to all players better than we can now.

We'll decide whether it's worth putting in the effort to get A-WPPR's off the ground sometime during 2018 when we see how it's going. If you look at the Women's WPPR rankings now and how it's integrated into the player profiles, you can toggle between those systems pretty seamlessly. It would be the same toggle between "Professional" and "Amateur" Rankings systems.

#468 2 years ago
Quoted from Frax:

Summary: All I was trying to say was "STOP CARING ABOUT RANKING"...it's pointless.

Exactly THIS . . . you can enjoy pinball, and even competitive pinball with caring about the rankings.

Not caring about the rankings makes it possible for you to avoid any of this fee related nonsense, if you feel it is nonsense.

(I'm going to ignore the fact that by playing in TPF, you actually donated $5 to the PAPA Circuit through your participation. The 40 finalists that make the Circuit Final and will be playing for a portion of that $5 you paid thank you for your support)

#481 2 years ago

What John said . . .

Here's what I posted on TF or Facebook or somewhere (probably here already):

We don't plan on screwing it up. We plan on making it better.

There's a path here where I see 3000 "AMATEUR" events per year, along with 500 "PRO" events per year feeding those systems concurrently.

Having an SCS at the "PRO" level for all the cash and glory, but also having an "AMATEUR" State Championship for recognition but without the issues of the cash at play. Inviting some players out to an "AMATEUR" National Championship isn't against the realm of possibility as well if we're already out there and setup for the "PRO" event to also take place.

The 'have your cake and eat it too' is my mission on this. Those that strictly want to play for fun can earn AMATEUR WPPR's and avoid all the fee nonsense. Those that want to take it more seriously can participate in "PRO" events at their choosing for PRO WPPR's.

Figuring out how to piece it all together will be the challenge once 2018 hits and we see how the 'market' reacts.

#483 2 years ago
Quoted from Eric_S:

Fair enough, it is ultimately a decision made within IFPA. While I don't agree with it, I can respect it. I appreciate that you are more than willing to rationally address these changes even though most of us are crapping all over you.

I hope the changes work out. I'm not spending more time debating the changes as it ultimately will just be a waste of said time.

I'm more than willing to get started on the feedback for the 2019 plan.

Would you be interested in being ranked on our "Amateur" rankings for the events that don't pay the endorsement fee to count towards the "Professional" rankings?

Where do you see this heading for Wisconsin? There were 39 'unique' events held in the state in 2016. Do all 39 apply to be part of the "Amateur" rankings? Do some percentage apply to the "Professional" rankings?

#487 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

I guess in reality that would mean they also get .75 of that back when they go on to win the WI SCS by default. Do we just mail you the .25?

You mail me the $1, I send you back the $.75 along with the State Championship trophy

#490 2 years ago
Quoted from metallik:

he's blowing a lot of his 'political capital' on this science experiment

I had political capital!?!? Woot!

#494 2 years ago
Quoted from Xerico:

ifpapinball , in a hypothetical world where a state earns $4,000 in $1/person fees, The state get $3,000 and Nationals get $1,000.
Does the IFPA require the entire $3,000 be allocated to the top 16, or can a state distribute that money to a "B" division (17-32) as it sees fit?
Marcus

Top 16 based on the percentages we prefer, which are "Seattle payouts".

#544 2 years ago
Quoted from DennisK:

As such, I would like to request the IFPA to consider modifying their proposal for an exception for charity events. Something along the lines of any tournament that donates 100% of its entry fees to a 501(c)3 or other registered nonprofit (at the national level for Canada or USA) and/or governmental entity is exempt from the IFPA tournament fee and still eligible as an official, sanctioned tournament. My hope is by requiring the entity to be registered as a nonprofit it would avoid loophole situations, but as added insurance I wouldn't mind seeing a cap on events per state that can do this (for example, each state is allowed four such charity tournaments per year, first-come first-serve on the IFPA calendar).

When we limited locations to one event per year, and come out with the "Charity Exemption", there were huge exploits on people leveraging this loophole to get an additional 25 WPPR points for their location while being able to donate to charity. It was a good thing (hell, we raised $70,000 during the year), however it was clear the following year when we removed the exemption that organizers were mostly doing this for the WPPR's and using the donation to charity as their path to more WPPR success.

In 2018 it will be up to the TD's to decide if the WPPR points are a valuable tool for their charity events. If they can draw 30 players without charging the endorsement fee at $30 per player, that's $900 raised. If they can draw 40 players at $29 per player with the $1 fee, that's $1160 raised.

There will be situations where it won't be worth that event leveraging WPPR's to ultimately net more proceeds for the charity, but we will leave that decision up to the TD and charity involved.

Quoted from DennisK:

Now that it isn't going to be the same amount per state, will there not be increased pressure from areas that fund a higher share of the prize pool to get more participants at Nationals?

Allowing 1 rep per State is an integral part of how we build Nationals. It removes a bunch of elite players that end up beating eachother up at State, making for Cinderella stories at Nationals. We don't want Nationals to be the same 'top 30 players in the world' playing.

The leverage that these states have is that those 16 players are playing for far greater cash prizes at the State level compared to other states. It creates a push-pull system. I've heard people say, "Oh my god, everyone is going to go to PA!" . . . but why would they do that for one 1 Nationals spot? The opposite then rings true. Why would anyone go to North Dakota to win $106? Well . . . you probably have an easier path to Nationals. We like those forces pounding against eachother to motivate players to make whatever choice they see fit.

#547 2 years ago
Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

Now maybe leagues should give out less points?

What's the difference between a "league" and a "tournament" Joe?

Can someone just decide to run their league as a tournament to be worth more points?

How many fewer points should a "league" count for?

Why should a league count for less? Is it less of a true test of competition?

#549 2 years ago
Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

Just saying with $ in more balance is needed from a league that reports 1-2 times a year vs an monthly that reports 12 times a year.

I think that this $ in hurts the monthly more pay in more and you get less per event in points. Now maybe this will move monthly to be more league likely and report less.

But then points wise people who can only make 1-2 events get less points may not even want to play if there score does not really add up to much.

When I did events it was all fun no cost other then coin drop with people who really did play in any other event.

It's about the cash and $1 is a lot for an $5 a person event. 20% cut per person vs 0.05% of an $20 person event. pool in $1 per player X 12.

League at $5X12 = $60 reports one time is about 0.015% cut per person and pool in $1 per player but you get more points.

So if all leagues decide to report annually we're good?

Those that don't mind paying the extra funds are free to report more often . . . but why not leave that choice up to the individual league to decide?

#552 2 years ago
Quoted from TomGWI:

Josh, how many tournaments did I play in last year? I can't imagine it's over 25.

28

#555 2 years ago
Quoted from InfiniteLives:

I like the idea of a capped value going to nationals and anything over that amount gets back to the states SCS. If a state didn't make that threshold that's fine, but for states that run a ton of events and then are paying even more $ for a chance that their 1 potential representative has a chance to win that money is kind of lame if they've put substantially more into the pool.

How many events did California or Washington run last year?

Josh, can you give us a break down of what every states tournament numbers for last year were? Or better, how much each state would have put towards nationals with last years numbers.

I don't think this will hurt our areas scene at all but I feel for the TD's that have to put in the extra work to make it happen for us when they already are going above and beyond to make our scene awesome.

Is their an alternative money transferring system to paypal that won't rip everyone off with fees associated with this?

I think for tournaments that already have a buy in its a no-brainer for the TD not to even worry about talking about the $1 to everyone, just take it outta the pot so a $5 event still costs $5 but the winners just take less home. Don't get into how convoluted the system is with them ha.

I'd prefer to not post those numbers, only because it's a falsehood.

Assuming all of these weeklies will continue reporting as weeklies just isn't going to be 2018 reality. There will be a 'right sizing' of reporting of which we haven't seen the impact.

Besides Paypal, I'll be able to take checks. I know that some TD's plan on pre-loading me with some sum of money, and then will work off that balance at their events. When they get close to having that all funded they will reload with me and we'll go from there.

Don't worry about the fees though . . . it's looking like ultimately that will come out of my pocket personally. I need to discuss with our tax accountant whether we have to payout 100% of these deposits taken in at the gross level or at the net level.

#557 2 years ago
Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

What about the IFPA? rules with leagues with players that only only do 1-2 events of 12 that they don't count?

If someone played 1-2 events out of 12, they don't exist in our system, they don't have to be accounted for in our endorsement fee.

#559 2 years ago
Quoted from Frax:

This is like the ONE thing you have said that I totally agree with.

550e44b30fc3cc2bff260aa5e8bbe601 (resized).jpg

#565 2 years ago
Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

what about the end of the year rush where if you get a old of old monthlys that move to 1-2 times a year that all report in big rushes at the end of the year.

December has already about twice as many tournaments as any other month.

If I'm approving a monthly 12 times per year, that's 12 times the work for us of doing it once per year.

Either way they are submitting in December . . . currently that often includes just December results, in the future in might include a full year's worth of results.

Same amount of workload for IFPA staff.

#566 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

I assume in a best case scenario, this would have all gone over smooth with 100% change over and continual growth of the player base and events.

That was never our best case scenario when putting together our 'business plan' for this implementation.

We knew there would absolutely be an attrition rate, both in tournaments simply not going the IFPA route going forward as well as events changing up how they would report.

I don't think it changes anyone's opinions if the 2016 numbers show endorsement fees collected of $10,000 or $100,000 or $1,000,000 . . . those hating this change will still hate this change

#568 2 years ago
Quoted from pinballkyle:

Sounds like most if not all weekly/monthly leagues will probably report annually now. Is there a large difference in point distribution in reporting monthly vs yearly? We pull about 55 people once a month.

Depends on the TGP of your events. Since TGP can't go over 100%, you do end up losing value for any 'games played' beyond the 100% mark because you don't get to keep counting those games.

55 events once a month has a base value of 27.5. If your TGP every month is 10%, then you're awarding 2.75 points per month. You could literally submit once every 10 months and be in the exact same place WPPR wise.

If your TGP every month is 50%, then you're awarding 13.75 points per month. After the second month you'll be maxed at 100% TGP, and 27.5 is the most points you can award. From that point on you won't gain any more value waiting to submit in 3, 4, 6, 10, 12 months.

The best bang for your WPPR buck is to submit as often as your TGP grades out to 100%. This will minimize the amount of fees you will have to pay, while maximizing your WPPR-age.

#569 2 years ago
Quoted from InfiniteLives:

Has any discussion happened around the idea of capping the amount each State would put towards the Nationals pot and then anything above that cap going back to their SCS payouts?

That was discussed. This has gone through a bunch of modifications. Originally it was 33% State, 33% National, 33% Worlds. When we found out we couldn't do this internationally the Worlds part went away and we went 2/3rd's State, 1/3rd's National.

We moved eventually to where we are now, 75% State, 25% National, which percentage wise keeps more at the state level than our previous system the last 4 years (31% went to the Nationals pot under the current system).

Capping the amount doesn't work to build to help build the National pot. We could end up with a State Championship that wins more than the National Champion, and we want things to move up in 'prestige' between those titles and feel that boosting the Nationals pot helps convey that message.

#570 2 years ago
Quoted from YeOldPinPlayer:

I'm interested if the WPPRs acquired will be different if we compare our current monthlyish reporting schedule to an annual schedule.

I'm more than happy to help organizers adjust their reporting to be as efficient as possible under our 2018 rules.

I haven't decided yet if our 32% TGP monthly will report every 3 months . . . with our location sponsoring the $1 fee we can simply continue forward and they are happy to have us coming in once a month to eat/drink/be merry.

#576 2 years ago
Quoted from nwpinball:

Is IFPA a 501(c)3?

We're not . . . we're a really shitty attempt-at-profit LLC

#577 2 years ago
Quoted from TomGWI:

Is there a way for the IFPA to collect the money directly from a player rather than the operator?

Operator/Player/Tournament Director/Tooth Fairy/Santa Claus . . . as long as the payment is processed through our website for the event being submitted, it'll be fine on our end.

#589 2 years ago
Quoted from InfiniteLives:

Josh, on a little bit of a tangent but no need to create a new thread since you are active in this one:
Has it ever been considered to add any TGP value to the SCS? Like how the majors rate at 150%.
If it is meant to be the culmination of a year of competition and limited to the top 16 in the State but since its only 16 people under the current rules it rates at 88%. The winner in Colorado got 12.03 points and we had 3 top 100 players in our state. Not that 12 is not a decent amount but then it obviously goes down significantly from there. I managed to wrangle in .3 for 13th lol (as Steve Ritchie would say, PLAY BETTER!) Looking at some other states some of them are pretty low considering that its suppose to be a high profile event.
It seems that if the SCS and Nationals are trying to be lifted up in 'prestige' then maybe they should get a bump to at least 100% TGP. Just a thought.

The multiplier won't matter. At 150% you go from .3 to .45. Winner goes from 12 to 18.

The limited number of players kills the value of the tournament.

16
#601 2 years ago
Quoted from yancy:

It's kinda poetic that the man who saved pinball would go on to father the man who killed pinball. Some real Kylo Ren shit.

Lmao.

I'm amazed at how hesitant people are to giving IFPA too much credit for growing the competitive pinball scene, yet we can single handedly destroy it.

#693 2 years ago

Ultimately on paper the IFPA is a for profit LLC. Giving up control personally on this is a non-starter.

We are setup with about 70 volunteers that serve in some 'official' capacity (Country Directors, State Representatives, Board Members). We then of course have hundreds of TD's that choose to have their tournament endorsed by us (additional hundreds of course do not).

I enjoy engaging in discussion because I find it all positive. When it comes to the group I run all ideas beyond, it's those 70 that drive the bus of where we take this IFPA thing.

Hilton - You're on our State Rep group. I would engage there to give your opinions and hear the opinions of the other 46 reps we have in that group. I find the signal to noise ratio on our Google Group much better than pinside (No offense intended to this discussion, which I honestly still do find valuable).

#714 2 years ago
Quoted from ryanwanger:

The yearly registration thing sounds great for TDs, but it would be absolutely terrible for encouraging new people to play.
"Oh you're new here? Please open up a web browser, fill out this form, pay the fee, and then we can get you into this tournament...."

50,000 players in the database of which 46,000 of them say "Suppressed Player"

#775 2 years ago
Quoted from JNX:

I agree, but some would have us believe this tax is for the advancement of the game of pinball. Now we're telling folks they can take it or leave it.

I firmly believe it is for the advancement of the game and hope to prove that out.

If we can have half the success that I've seen out of our Big Buck Hunter model (same model) then the sport will be in a better place long term.

#778 2 years ago
Quoted from Jdawg4422:

I firmly believe it will have the opposite effect. Competitive pinball has had massive improvements in participation over the last couple years, and i believe 2018 will be the first year in quite a while that less people play than the previous year and less events.
just look at the comments here. "you can take it or leave it." "you dont have to play" "If you dont want to play in SCS dont play any IFPA events".... list goes on and on.

We will have to agree to disagree then.

If I let a few Pinside comments curb my motivation and enthusiasm for advancing the sport forward, the IFPA would have died a long time ago.

I believe there is a likely chance less players play in IFPA endorsed events, but believe those players interested in casually competing will still be out there playing just as often.

#781 2 years ago
Quoted from Jdawg4422:

Those quotes seem to contradict each other.

Not at all. Players don't have to play in "endorsed" events to be playing competitive pinball.

The advancement of the sport is to focus on garnering the media attention that can help put pinball back in the dialogue of a world that currently doesn't discuss it as much as they should.

With that media attention comes a whole new world of opportunity to introduce new players to the game even existing, let alone a game that can be played competitively.

We're implementing this as a way to give ourselves a better chance at landing that media attention at a more meaningful level.

#785 2 years ago
Quoted from JNX:

Sack up and get sponsors and generate media interest.

Yes sir! I'm on it! (And between my dad and Steve Epstein with PAPA, along with Zach and myself at IFPA we've been trying for over 25 years. Looking forward to where we can take the next 25)

#787 2 years ago
Quoted from pinlink:

So more money = more media attention? going from $100 payout to $1,000 will draw in major news outlets to cover pinball?
How large does the prize pool need to be in order to gain this media attention that is so sure to follow?

Yes, that's exactly right.

The next step from there is to land bigger corporate sponsors.

With Big Buck we were able to stretch the prize package from $10,000 up to now $75,000 for our world championship.

The first big step was using a portion of the fees paid into tournaments towards the World Championship pool. From there the ability to gain bigger sponsors was far easier.

Between all the State and National payouts the total purse was about $20,000 (Including a NIB Stern game from Stern who is our biggest sponsor). I would like to see that number eventually approach where we are at with Buck Hunter. Time will tell if we can get there using the same methodology.

#788 2 years ago
Quoted from Pickle:

I am sure we can all agree we appreciate the service that IFPA does and most have no issue if the IFPA needs to cover some administrative costs for the service it provides. But saying you want to media coverage and to grow the sport has NOTHING to do with this fee you are wanting to charge. GET COORPORATE SPONSORSHIP!!! You get Stern, JJP, Spooky, Marco, etc to advertise, add to prize pools etc. There are lots of ways to "grow" competitive pinball and not create this divide. Surely Stern can afford to give a little back to the community that is buying their $15K pins. And I am sure they will earn sales out of it so it's not a bad idea for them to do it.

Ironically enough the companies you listed have all supported IFPA. They are the reason we don't need to collect fees from players to cover our administrative expenses.

Stern gives a ton back to the competitive community through their work with us via their rewards program and sponsorship of the top prize at both the National and World Championships.

10
#809 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

so you are feeling entitled to others paying in for your prize pool because you have been playing pinball for 20 years... and want a biugger prize pool, but are unwilling to just up the ante form your own pocket???!!! WTH! glad that is cleared up.
Sorry but I would love to see you explain this in person to new players as a tournament for their first or second time playing.
Casual person >>"Hey DNO, why do we pay and extra buck for each event now"
DNO >>"Because I have been playing pinball for 20 years and you should be paying in so I have a shot at a bigger prize pool at the SCS"
Casual person >> "what is the SCS? can I play?"
DNO >> " Well the chance is slim to none, but sure" "It is usually an event where the top 25-30 player in each state duke it out for 16 total spots, but with years of practice and competition you may eventually be good enough and play enough to earn a spot"
Casual person >>" so what happens if I dont want to pay the extra buck?" "how many events do I need to play in currently to feasibly earn a spot"
DNO >> "then you dont get to play in these events and dont get to be a WPPR ranked person?" "realistically you are going to need to play in 25 or more events ina year; alternatively you could just be naturally talented and win a few reall big events (but good luck with that as it rarely happens)"
Casual person >> " thanks but no thanks" leaves and never returns to play competitive pinball again
Casual person to friends >> " You would not believe it... They wanted me to pay and extra buck everything I can to an event just so they could get a prize pool of 5k at the end of the year, but only the top 16 players in the state get to attend" "Yeah, I had fun playing pinball, but the ultra competitive vibe and paying extra money was a total turn off"

Here's how I see this playing out locally.

Entry fee for our monthly tournament is $5.

Casual player decides to join and pay $5.

Casual player doesn't win the tournament and isn't impacted by any of the $1 nonsense.

Winner of the event (most likely Zach) pays the $1 fee on everyone's behalf off of his winnings.

Casual player comes back the following month because they had FUN . . . pays another $5 for the entry fee. Rinse/repeat.

These hypothetical conversations about an extra dollar being paid doesn't exist if there isn't an extra $1 being paid.

(Yes I recognize free events will have an issue like this . . . let me try this out for size)

Me - Welcome to our lovely tournament, so glad you're interested in playing. Now we have no entry fee and you are welcome to dip your toe in the water and give it a shot, OR for $1 you're able to be recognized by the IFPA for your sanctioned participation in the event officially. By doing that you'll be listed in the official world ranking of pinball players, have a personal profile created that you can update, and have a place where all your results are archived for any events you choose to participate as a sanctioned IFPA player.

Casual Player - Sounds interesting . . . I'll check out the website later but for now I would like to just play for free.

Me - Sounds GREAT, no pressure at all on participating "officially" or "unofficially". Hope you have a good time. Any questions you have about the IFPA, game questions, etc, don't hesitate to ask.

Casual Player to friends - This Josh Sharpe guy is sooooo nice. I felt so welcomed at this event. You guys should all go and check it out. I had such a great time playing pinball, meeting some new great people.

#816 2 years ago
Quoted from boustrophedonic:

I'm confused, I thought it was all or nothing for a given event. In other words, how do you track results if you have a league with 16 people and only 2 of them are interested in earning points?

TD's are welcome to make this an opt-in/opt-out thing.

If 16 people play and only 2 of them are interested in earning points, the fee for endorsement of that event is $2. Only those 2 players will be submitted into the results sent to IFPA. All 16 people still get to play for FUN (which is the most important).

You can have your cake and eat it too if the TD is willing and able to handle those logistics.

#818 2 years ago
Quoted from Snailman:

Wait... so you mean that the model the IFPA is proposing has already worked elsewhere in a competitive arcade gaming community? Could this forced growth in BBH State and National prize pools have possibly led to the growth in the popularity of the game, growth in the number of BBH players around the country that are made up of now-larger pockets of people in their local communities, growth in people willing to try playing the game, and growth in the amount of coin drop for BBH operators/locations?

Worked is past tense . . . I prefer "Continues to work"

posted 5 days ago

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/134051267

#825 2 years ago
Quoted from desertT1:

Is IFPA providing a chart for % payout from the SCS? I don't think there should be an option for that to vary from state to state.

Yes . . . here will be the official breakdown of every State Championship:

1st place - 30% of the funds
2nd place - 18% of the funds
3rd place - 12% of the funds
4th place - 8% of the funds
5th through 8th place - 4% of the funds (each)
9th through 16th place - 2% of the funds (each)

There will be absolutely no option for State Reps to do anything but this structure.

#828 2 years ago
Quoted from earthvsmattGR:

But how do the IFPA rankings work for those 2 players then?
Say out of 16 people 2 pay- let's call them player A and B.

Player A finishes 3rd, and player B finishes 9th-
Will player A and B get points for 3rd and 9th or for finishing 1st & 2nd (for IFPA ranking purposes)

Player A will get points for finishing in 1st place, Player B will get points for finishing in 2nd place. Those will be the only two players listed in the standings if you pulled up the results on the IFPA wesbite.

#829 2 years ago
Quoted from boustrophedonic:

Are the non-payers tracked but hidden?

No . . . the non-payers wouldn't exist for the "officially sanctioned" results. They are only tracked if they are officially included as a sanctioned player.

The flexibility for TD's that want to do this allow those casual players the chance to take the system into their own hands. Maybe they allow themselves to play as a sanctioned player once a month, while only playing casually the other 3 weeks of the month.

Or if they find themselves getting better during the year, perhaps they start participating officially at some point in time when they think they have a shot to compete for a spot in the State Championship.

#845 2 years ago
Quoted from boustrophedonic:

So one other question, let's say a slightly above average player has a lucky streak and wins a tournament or league. Could he opt to pay the $1 on behalf of all the losers after the fact to increase his points? Or taken a step further, what if a TD allowed players to decide after the league/tournament occurs whether to opt in or not (in other words, if you have an off night, simply opt out for that event)?

What John said is correct . . . you can't decide AFTER the fact.

I equate it to any normal tournament. You don't play your qualifying game and then decide afterwards if you want to pay for the entry to stand. You pay your entry to play the game, and then you earn the right to keep the score of the game you just played.

#878 2 years ago

The thing that encourages me the most is that there isn't a group of players and organizers choosing to stop playing and running tournaments altogether.

Local custom rankings, non-points events, opt in/out .... They are all solutions that result in the continued growth and interest in pinball in conjunction with what we're trying to accomplish at IFPA.

I would be far more disheartened at players and organizers giving up the sport altogether over this, and that's clearly not happening.

#910 2 years ago
Quoted from tayamo:

Josh, I think you need to talk to the folks at ESPN. They are always looking for good sports/competition content. I'm wondering if IFPA came up with a made for TV tournament format, got real sports production professionals to do broadcasts, or at least do it in that style, whether you'd have a product worthy of selling to a network. Then, you'd do a series of made for TV events, and see if that get's the viewership to help generate some ad revenue.

This is where I see us following a similar path that we've done for Big Buck Hunter. We've spent a ton of time and money at Raw Thrills hiring professionals to handle the production value of our stream.

Here's a taste from last year's BBH World Championship:

We have some more interesting "stuff" brewing, and there's interest on the Raw Thrills side to leverage this production company to serve as a group that can handle all "Arcade E-Sports". Imagine this kind of production for pinball streaming, Golden Tee streaming, Foosball, Chexx Hockey, etc.

With the ability to capture all of Arcade E-Sports together yelling in the same direction, all generating content, it becomes even easier to ask for corporate sponsorship. For us to land Jaegermesiter for BBH . . . it would have been way easier to pitch to Jaegermeister sponsoring the Arcade E-Sports universe and capturing BBH, pinball and all these other mediums together.

I swear there's a method to this madness, and I'm excited about going down this path and seeing where the other side lands.

#925 2 years ago
Quoted from flynnibus:

I agree with you.. but the BBH video kind of fell flat for me. The event sure looked more like a Red Bull promo event than a competitive 'e-sports' event. The camera swinging over the massive crowd of about 60 ppl didn't help establish the credibility of 'impact'.

Gotta start somewhere.. and I agree with buy-ins funding the activities. But please, less Bar drink promo girls and more competition.

That was the sizzle reel created post-event with the intention of creating that kind of vibe.

Here's a link to the actual stream from the 2015 championship (5 hours+ like a normal pinball tournament):

We're 9 years in and still just getting started . . .

#929 2 years ago
Quoted from Crater:

Now, what that does is it will discourage those top tier players from attending as many tournaments and lessen the value overall.

This highly depends on those tournaments continue to submit results.

I play every month in a league in Chicago, but we only submit results once for year. That's 1/12th of the fee of the exact league that chooses to report results monthly.

There's nothing stopping these weekly events from morphing into a league that submit results monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annually. If a weekly turns into something that submits annually and a player actually shows up for all 52 weeks, they end up paying less than $.02 per time they play as the endorsement fee.

#931 2 years ago
Quoted from Jdawg4422:

and dont get squat for points for playing in 52 league nights

That really depends on the scope of the league (number and quality of players).

The Seattle Pinball League submits once per year:

https://www.ifpapinball.com/tournaments/view.php?t=16606

Raymond Davidson earned 49.30 WPPR points for finishing 1st for that season. I have no idea how many times they actually got together and played but he earned far more points than "squat".

#952 2 years ago
Quoted from pinlink:

I don't think this plan will work to expand the competitive scene of pinball like it may have worked with BBH.

You also didn't believe I could possibly receive 51% support on this and started a poll to try and prove that.

I think this plan will work ... And that's enough for me to try.

#966 2 years ago

The $1 fee definitely has some perks for new players:

- You officially become a world ranked pinball player
- Player profile will be created to archive all the endorsed events you've played in
- Eligible for the $tern Rewards Program with the chance to purchase games at discounted pricing if interested

For someone like my mom who plays roughly 10 events per year and has never won anything, she considers that $10 as money well spent to track her progress up the world rankings:

https://www.ifpapinball.com/player.php?p=38928

7565th and rising! Watch out ya'll she's coming to get all of us.

#969 2 years ago
Quoted from JNX:

You make it sound like those are incremental benefits in comparison with a new player in 2017.
That is not true at all.
Dont whitewash it. Just say what it is for crisakes. I'll say it again, when the alleged advocates of the change cannot sell the bill if goods, it is telling that even you folks see the BS factor in the whole deal.

That service that everyone enjoys from the IFPA (being world ranked, having a profile they can customize, tracking their progress, etc) has been a free service.

In 2018 it won't be a free service.

We're leveraging the interest in the wppr system that all players have (especially casual players) as the motivation to continue their interest in that system.

For $10 per year my mom can enjoy those perks (regardless of where that money goes). She no longer gets those perks for free like players do in 2017.

#972 2 years ago
Quoted from InfiniteLives:

I think the real question right now for Josh should be how in the heck the IFPA hasnt updated their website proclaiming Escher's victory at the PAPA World Championships! Come on man! still feeling the sting of that TZ game tie breaker?

It's comin .... Gotta know how many wppr's he took home first

#974 2 years ago
Quoted from JNX:

But we were told the money was to support State and National tournaments. Now it's a "payment for points?" We were told IFPA would not be taking a cut of the money and it was 100% for the tourneys. Is that still true?
Making it up as we go along, eh?

Ultimately it's both. The IFPA isn't taking a cut of the money as we are putting it all towards the SCS and Nationals pools. That doesn't make the benefits any different for those players that choose to participate in an IFPA endorsed event.

Players enjoy all these benefits now "for free". Next year they won't get these benefits unless somehow that $1 fee is being covered in those endorsed events they play in.

#979 2 years ago
Quoted from WJxxxx:

but still having the draw of the IFPA website and WPPR pts

THAT is exactly what the fee is all about.

The service that everyone enjoys from the IFPA (being world ranked, having a profile they can customize, tracking their progress, etc) has been a free service.

Those TD's and players in those communities that are interested in the draw of the IFPA website and WPPR points have that at their disposal . . . the only difference being now they have to pay for those perks.

#981 2 years ago
Quoted from WJxxxx:

I agree, and just by seeing the negative feeling/discussion that this has created it is clear to see how much of a pull people see the WPPR points as. I just think it would have been accepted more readily if the contribution was only required for an event to be SCS registered, not IFPA registered.

When asking a group of people if they would prefer a 'free service' or a 'pay service' . . . it's realllllllllllllllly hard to get massive support that people would rather pay for it.

Without a doubt it would have more accepted if we continued to offer those IFPA WPPR perks for free. There's a large group of players that aren't interested in the SCS, but are very interested in earning WPPR's. That is the group where we are leveraging their interest in the system to generate these fees. If they like these IFPA player perks, they can pay for it. If they don't care enough they can not worry about it anymore.

What we do with those funds is our business, but the focus here is that earning WPPR's, having a profile you can customize, having an archive of all the endorsed events you've ever played in, etc. will now be a paid service that we offer.

#985 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

your spin is a little late on this one, but I appreciate the effort at a revisionist history while refusing to just say the change control was poorly done

225ui (resized).jpg

#986 2 years ago
Quoted from blueberryjohnson:

This is totally reasonable, and I think the same change would have been better received had it been introduced as "we're instituting a $1 fee for each player in a tournament because we finally need to charge something to continue offering all the great stuff you love about wpprs" instead of "you have to pay for wpprs now so the ifpa champions can win more money"

YES! This is what I meant to say . . . Moderators please delete this thread and I will start a new one with this verbiage

Ultimately this was always the plan, and our delivery of that message was definitely not great. The focus was on where the funds are going, when really that's none of anyone's business but the IFPA's.

So let it be official:

"We're instituting a $1 fee for each player in a tournament because we finally need to charge something to continue offering all the great stuff you love about wpprs"

#988 2 years ago
Quoted from flynnibus:

You introduce the idea as 'funding the SCS events' and downplay the idea of ifpa 'membership' fees
Now you use the idea of ifpa perks as the reason to pay the $1 fee

We definitely led with WHY we're generating these fees, and that ended up not being the best presentation.

The plan ALL ALONG was to leverage the interest in all the IFPA perks that players enjoy into moving those perks into a "paid service".

The service is implemented at the tournament director level, NOT the player level, so TD's are welcome to endorse or not endorse their events should their player based be interested in maintaining those IFPA player perks that will no longer be 'free'.

I have no problem biting any bullet and calling this 'anything you want', or 'anything Hilton wants'

We can call it a MEMBERSHIP FEE if that makes it more palatable for people to swallow. We're implementing that fee at the tournament level and utilizing the processes we have in place through our website that TD's already have to jump through to handle this additional step.

#992 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

I vote for calling it "stupid"

If you are going to call it a membership fee, then just charge each individual member the fee. (I suggest once a year and paid directly to your paypal account)

This moment forward it will be called the "Hilton thinks it's stupid fee".

The process for which we will be administrating and collecting the fee will not change.

Back to the No Spin Zone for you Hilton

#995 2 years ago
Quoted from PersonX99:

It's all optional though isn't it? You can still run a tournament, non IFPA sanctioned at no cost.

100% correct.

It's optional at the TD level. For example the TD decides to run a non-IFPA endorsed event, so there's no fees to collect.

It's also optional at the player level for those TD's that wish to offer that opt-in/out for their events. For example the TD decides to run an IFPA endorsed event, offering the players a chance to not "officially" participate but rather simply play for casual fun. In the results submitted to the IFPA those unofficial players are removed, and there's no $1 fee associated with their participation.

#997 2 years ago

Flynnibus - new IFPA Director of Public Relations. Welcome aboard!

#1003 2 years ago
Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

What about tax issues for the local td's? If one has over $600 is fees to remit then there maybe issues?

What about legal issues with collecting and remitting this fee at the local per event level?

What about the tax / paper work issues with a State TD that has to deal with an over 10K prize pool?

What about charities that may take issues with the NON not for profit IFPA needed to be paided a fee collected at the event level to have an charity event?

I'll talk to you in person about this at the next Level 257 final Joe

#1004 2 years ago
Quoted from PersonX99:

My guess is a membership fee would generate a lot less revenue. I compete in my local league as well as in other tournaments (sometimes), but I would probably not buy a membership. Why? Ranking doesn't mean much to me. There are likely a lot of casual players who would do the same thing, especially of the membership fee were ~$25/yr. It's much easier to sneak in a $1 fee for each event.

funny-bingo-memes-08 (resized).jpg

#1015 2 years ago
Quoted from shimoda:

Actually, anyone outside of the US or Canada will still get those perks for free right? Just US and Canada players have to pay. Just clarifying.

US/Canada EVENTS have to pay...players can be from anywhere.

For example if a European player shows up to Pinburgh, it's the Pinburgh TD that's responsible for the endorsement fee if that player is included in the final standings submitted to the IFPA.

#1016 2 years ago
Quoted from Jdawg4422:

so its much easier to sneak in a $1 fee. Why be sneaky about it at all? Why cant you just tell the truth and let people decide if it is worth it?
EDIT: This wasnt quoted from Josh directly, i quoted a quote in his post and that how it came up. But in that post Josh did say BINGO insinuating that this is what he was thinking. Just be honest and let people decide.

My "BINGO" was in reference to a flat annual membership fee not generating nearly as much money.

Currently out of 50,000 players in the database only 4000 have "registered" accounts (that's currently FREE to do).

Even at no charge suddenly 92% of the players in our database would be suppressed players.

Once you make those 4000 players pay anything you are only guaranteed that the number decreases. The higher the fee, the higher the attrition rate, making the rankings even more full of suppressed players.

Trying to then convince first time players to pony up $5? $10? $25? for an annual fee puts up a barrier to entry for these new players.

Most of these endorsement fee solutions don't require casual players to pay anything to get a taste of those IFPA perks.

#1019 2 years ago
Quoted from JNX:

but many of us have agreed to paying a fee for IFPA, even if it differs from the $1 tax per event. You are trying to have it both ways and that is why this topic is split almost evenly down the middle among avid players of the game.

"Many of us" ... How many players would you guess would agree to $5 per year?

The only data point I have out of 50,000 players is that 46,000 don't care even at no charge.

The topic is split but we've heard mostly positive feedback to our implementation plan. Yes there are a few people in this thread that have repeatedly made their stance known, and that's appreciated.

How many unique events do you play in a year? (Unique being a monthly recurring event counts as 1, not 12 for the year)

#1023 2 years ago
Quoted from JNX:

You cannot count monthly events as 1, as IFPA would be drawing $1 from me at each event, or $12 per year.

Not if that event was submitted annually by the TD. There are paths to right sizing this fee to whatever the preference is of that particular community.

For us our location is sponsoring the dollar so it's in our best interest to submit monthly to build the pot.

What events do you specifically play in? Who is the TD? Do you guys know how this is going to be implemented? Have you tried for any local sponsorships? Have there been any decisions made how often results will be submitted?

#1025 2 years ago
Quoted from Circus_Animal:

Unless there are strictly policed rules about the timing of money collection, many players could decide whether or not to be included in the official results based on their performance.

This decision has to be made BEFORE the event starts if a TD is offering this option.

So best to look into your crystal ball and predict if you'll do well or not before deciding.

#1028 2 years ago
Quoted from Eric_S:

Josh, I think you forgot the sarcasm emoji at the end of that sentence.
In all seriousness, I think most of us realize that this is the way it is going to be for 2018. However, in Wisconsin, we have a legitimate legal concern in regard to how pinball prizes could be construed as an illegal activity. The MGC is the largest tournament in the state and the organizers have repeatedly said they cannot pay a fee as they have been warned that there will be legal consequences. At the same time, the MGC, being the largest tournament in the state, not having it count towards IFPA would de-legitimize player rankings in the state.
For instance, someone plays in a ton of tournaments and builds up their total points in the state to make the SCS, but they pooped the bed at the MGC, could make the SCS at the expense of someone else that did very well at MGC, the legitimate largest state tournament. I would suggest making very few and limited exceptions to the new IFPA tournament pricing to make issues like this go away.

I will deal with those individual TD's privately with respect to their unique situations (and have texted with Dan a bunch already about this). I believe we can find a sponsor specifically for MGC to make sure it's included. Who knows, I might even sponsor the MGC tournaments out of my own pocket since that tournament means a ton to me personally. 11 years ago we ran the first official IFPA tournament for wppr points, and it was at the MGC teaming up with Dan and crew.

#1031 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

If you are deciding to sponsor events and waive fees, then charity events are a good idea.

Just to be clear no fees will be waived. If they are sponsored then that is an acceptable method of having those dues accounted for. 75% would still go in the WI pool (to be played in my basement), and 25% will go towards the nationals pool.

I'll think about sponsoring MGC or Mad Rollin ... Depends on who's been nicer to me on Pinside between you and Dan. Give me 8 months to think about it

#1034 2 years ago
Quoted from Frax:

IFPA isn't community owned, it's family owned

If there was ever an assumption that the IFPA was actually community owned then that's my bad. I reach out to the community for feedback constantly but last week I had to file the IFPA tax return and the money owed was definitely on me and my family to pay.

#1044 2 years ago
Quoted from JNX:

It changes the payout. Simple math.
I honestly cannot believe the number of people advocating, "Just sneak it by them"
Your members must be a bunch of morons. Seriously.

Having the winners subsidize the fee makes your math incorrect as well.

You would only be responsible for the $1 fee if you won the event played. For casual players who never win this is a non-issue. A majority of the players in our database are these casual players that rarely come close to winning.

If you play in 100 events and win none of them, your admin fee for the year is $0 is Kevin's point.

Now if you play in 100 events and win all of them (in events where TDs are having the winners subsidize the fee) you would end up paying far MORE than $100 for the year.

The point being every community has a bunch of different paths to take on this, and more importantly the perspective of the player analyzing the fee varies greatly depending on how it's implemented.

Do you have any answers to the questions I asked above actually dealing with your situation?

What events do you specifically play in? Who is the TD? Do you guys know how this is going to be implemented? Have you tried for any local sponsorships? Have there been any decisions made how often results will be submitted?

I'm far more interested in discussing your personal actual situation rather than hypotheticals of other player bases around the country.

#1054 2 years ago
Quoted from JNX:

I have already described how my current opportunities to play would yield IFPA $6 to 8$ per month if I played the bi-weekly selfie league( currently free,) the weekly Tuesday night XXX games( free,) and the monthly( currently $5 with a proper payout.) That does not even count the League games you are describing played in the southern location.

"Opportunities" is an interesting word to use. I prefer "reality" and don't mind discussing actual impact on players.

I'm assuming this is you?

https://www.ifpapinball.com/player.php?p=26732

I count 22 events played last year, so I find the comments of this costing you $100+ a bit misleading. If there's genuine concern that you don't feel the IFPA perks are worth $22 to YOU, I'm all for taking that opinion as a genuine opinion on your situation.

I'm not sure which of those events were organized by Phil, but that $22 is the most you would have paid for your participation in IFPA endorsed events.

Ultimately though you are correct, we are changing how this whole thing works. What once was "free" is now "not free".

You mention the benefits not changing for most players and that's where I disagree. The IFPA perks go away for anyone that chooses to opt out of supporting IFPA endorsed events. Without that support (whether they directly pay or if it's subsidized by another method), that player loses their ability to have a customizable profile that stores all sort of historical tournament information at their fingertips, as well as allowing them to be an official world ranked player, earn IFPA related rewards, etc.

That's just reality for all players. Some won't care about losing those perks ... Some will care enough to follow with our paid service rules however that impacts them.

#1060 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

IFPA doesnt seem to care it is asking many TDs to break local or state laws...

Not at all ... Just the opposite. For any areas where paying an administration fee is illegal the TD should contact me to discuss work around options.

Ultimately I would far prefer for TDs who feel uncomfortable to NOT submit any events for IFPA endorsement.

#1061 2 years ago
Quoted from JNX:

Why should our free events become pay events?

They shouldn't (if the player base is truly their in a casual nature and doesn't value any of those IFPA perks listed - there's no reason to have these free events become pay events).

If they are interested in paying for those IFPA perks then that community will come up with a solution.

#1065 2 years ago
Quoted from Spyderturbo007:

So now that we are going to be subsidizing state and national tournament prize pools, will people be restricted to one state?

Yes people are restricted to one state ... Since SCS day is the same day for all states nobody can play in more than one.

If you are talking about residency rule 'stuff' go search the Pinside thread from a few years ago where this discussion all went down. My opinions haven't changed since those comments.

#1068 2 years ago
Quoted from Spyderturbo007:

I wasn't here a few years ago, so I don't know what you mean. Pinball is relatively new to me.

No problem . . . enjoy a deep dive into these threads. If there's anything not answered here feel free to ask, but I think every possible question is answered:

https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/ifpa-scs-eligibility-should-be-changed

https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/ifpa-championship-series-2015-2016-discussion-thread

#1071 2 years ago
Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

so if one states finals is held in a different state will pot cut and points go the state it's for or the sate that it is in?

The illegal tournament run with illegal prizes will have a special Illegal Rankings System setup where the illegal pot and illegal points will go towards. This will be based on the illegal location where the illegal tournament isn't legally happening

#1074 2 years ago
Quoted from Spyderturbo007:

My complaint is funding a state prize fund for people that don't live in the state, let alone some that don't even live with 1000 miles of the state.

Yes that complaint has been duly noted by IFPA staff . . . click through those previous threads I posted and you'll see our reasoning behind how/why we set things up the way we do.

#1079 2 years ago
Quoted from yancy:

Sounds to me like you care more about the dollar than the law.

Should I be worried about a long term entrapment situation?

I agree to sponsor Hilton's endorsement fee, agree to meet him at the Brat Stop to make it official . . . 4 police cars pull up and I'm sent away to prison for 10 years.

Hilton walks away with a smirk and a wink in my direction . . .

#1082 2 years ago
Quoted from Jdawg4422:

This is 100% not true!! if each event was free and now its a $1 per person your "admin" fee(i guess what you are trying call it now, it best resembles a tax but you wont say that because you are not honest and hope that people wont care or figure it out) would be $100

For KEVIN'S EVENTS this is 100% true.

Per Kevin's previous post:

"As a TD im pulling the $1 per player from the prize pool."

Like I've said many times over, different communities will go about this fee/tax/surcharge/cost/expense in different ways. I have no problem calling it any of those terms.

Free events will certainly be the most impacted, and it will be left to those communities to decide what's in the best interests of those particular players. You say that I hope people won't care or won't figure it out, but I don't have that opinion at all.

If people don't care . . . this is meaningless to them, and they can continue playing in non-endorsed tournaments.

If people do care . . . then they have to decide how much they care (with respect to following our rules for endorsement).

I'm all for people figuring that out for themselves, YMMV depending on who you are, and your level of Whopperitis.

#1084 2 years ago
Quoted from Jdawg4422:

Now they wont be able to do that because now we have to have two different tourneys and where we were getting 25-30 players now we will have two seperate tourneys with 15 people each.

This is exactly what we see happening . . .

NOW --> 30 players participating in one IFPA endorsed tournament

NEXT YEAR --> 15 players participating in one IFPA endorsed tournament, with 15 players participating in a non-endorsed tournament

With respect to people actually out there playing competitively, nothing has changed.

Your community is welcome to make this fee annual. Simply submit results for your event annually. Again, we want to present that flexibility to the TD's to be able to implement this however they deem is best for their particular situation.

Your situation is ONE SCENARIO, just like Kevin's. You're discounting his situation in your argument, and giving greater credence to your own situation. I can admire that you feel your scenario is somehow more important than Kevin's, but I value every scenario equally.

If you want to send me a link to your profile, I can certainly look into your events and see if there are optimizations to be had with respect to the submission of results.

#1111 2 years ago
Quoted from MrDucks:

Free meaning that a random person at the arcade playing alone when asked if they'd like to join the tournament isn't going to have to pay any more than they were already paying. It's easy to talk them into trying competitive pinball in that case.

If your community consists of a player basis like your example, I would strongly urge the TD to offer the rankings as an 'opt in' for that particular player base.

Then you can absolutely tell that random person at the arcade playing alone if they would like to join the tournament. There's no additional charge for them to participate.

If they find joy in that participation and choose to want to join the ranks of the IFPA "officially", that's completely up to them, no outside pressure needed.

#1112 2 years ago
Quoted from DNO:

All these free tourneys, and brand new players, shouldn't really be counted towards the "world rankings" anyway IMO.
I have always thought the rankings have been diluted too much by allowing just anyone to put their event up and get points. I had wondered if having the ifpa choose the only events that would be used to decide rankings would not be a better way to determine the rankings.
But the ifpa has done it the way they have, and TDs have figured out how to abuse the system and pump up their events to get inflated points that they don't deserve, time and time again.
So this is a great way to trim the fat, and tell people to be a bit more serious, while getting rid of the Superleagues and free point frenzies that plague the system.
And everyone acting like they just can't possibly hold their free events now! Just hold the damn event and don't register, guess what? All those new players won't give a shit about rankings, and never would have, especially if people don't go around complaining about NOT getting any wpprs.
Pool leagues aren't free (VNEA,BCA, etc), bowling leagues aren't free, dart leagues aren't free, the list goes on...
If people want to compete in pinball, want to be considered a world ranked player, have a shot at "state" or "nationals", then they will pay.
If you're not that serious and don't care, go find some local freebie stuff or play dollar games with your friends.

DNO for next IFPA President

Rather than us choosing at the 'corporate' level, we're giving that power to the TD's to independently choose whether they want to participate or not.

What I'm realizing is that people LOVE LOVE LOVE their free WPPR's, and I understand it hurts to feel like that's being taken away from you . . . because yeah, it kind of is. I promise it's for what I feel is the greater good of the sport and the direction we want to take it at the IFPA, and don't want to stop encouraging people to continue to compete for the greatest reason of all . . . FUN.

#1117 2 years ago
Quoted from JNX:

I'm loving the calls for exclusivity and culling the herd. You are absolutely destoying the business model, folks.
The idea is to use the underlings to fund the Big Fish. Can't do that if the minnows aren't welcome.

At this point I can literally feel your pain at what this change will mean to you personally, and for that I do genuinely apologize.

I'm appreciative in your extreme passion and interest in the rankings, and if things fall as flat as you think they will under our model, then you'll only have one year of dealing (or not dealing) with it.

#1121 2 years ago
Quoted from guyincognito:

Maybe that's a good indicator that 92% of the players who have ever accidentally found themselves in the midst of a pinball tournament, don't put much value in your points and don't feel much of an incentive to donate $1 to a prize pool that is realistically only attainable to a select number of players?

Exactly, it's a GREAT indicator . . . which is why we're doing this at the EVENT level and not the PLAYER level.

For the 157 players that just played in the Texas Pinball Festival, if we went the player registration method, on average we would get $13 from the 8% of interested players in that tournament.

At the event level, we're able to capture all 157 of those players because TPF funds the endorsement fee out of their prize pool (like they just did with the $5 per player PAPA Circuit fee this year that nobody noticed). We're able to generate $157 towards the TX SCS and Nationals pool using this method.

11
#1123 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

The one thing I still have not seen you even acknowledge Josh, is that up till this IFPA was a community built, supported, and run vibe. Sure you established the foundation, but the growth and nourishing came from the community.

Fully acknowledged Hilton. The IFPA was built on the backs of all the interested TD's, hosts, players that you mentioned. Without them taking the time and effort to register their events with us, there would be no rankings system. With that said I think TD's have used the IFPA for their own benefit with respect to WPPR points being a motivating factor towards boosting attendance. We're happy to put in the 2 hours a day of work reviewing/approving calendar submissions, results submissions, profile updates and general questions in return for us being able to leverage the work the TD's have done to get these events under the IFPA umbrella of endorsed events.

The time has come for us to go a direction I feel will "elevate the awareness and visibility of pinball across the globe and generate media coverage and corporate backing to bring the sport of competitive pinball back into the spotlight", as our mission statement has said since day 1.

We will continue to rely on the community to move things forward, but no doubt there will be casualties of TD's and players that refuse to take part in our movement. For those people I'm extremely appreciative of their past support, and hope that the sacrifice of their support is not done in vain.

As you can personally speak to, any TD interested in pursuing an alternate system has our full support. I didn't hesitate to send you our entire database of results for WI, and will send anything and everything we have to any interested party. That's the least I can do to support those that have supported us so well in the past.

#1126 2 years ago
Quoted from guyincognito:

OK, that seems on the level.

Now it's just up to the Tournament Directors to decide whether or not their 2018 events are IFPA Sanctioned or not, correct?

Exactly right.

A TD with a group of players that have no interest in the IFPA or WPPR points or SCS or the like shouldn't bother having their event endorsed and paying the fee.

For TD's that do have a group of players that are interested, I highly suggest talking with your particular base regarding an implementation strategy that works best for those involved.

#1129 2 years ago
Quoted from CrazyLevi:

Yes Josh, please state the objective behind this. I'm not sure I was able to wrap my mind around it the last 7,265 times you stated it.

Also, can you point out any and all ramifications this may have in the state of Wisconsin?

Now that I've met you, it allows me to read your posts in "Levi's voice" . . . and boy does that make them wayyyyyyyyyy more entertaining

#1135 2 years ago
Quoted from Pinzap:

I am amazed every day when I read new attacks (or mostly old attacks rehashed) that don't put Josh on tilt (poker kind, not pinball). Josh... if you haven't tried winning a few bucks at Texas Holdem before, you should seriously consider it.

Don't worry . . . I take it all out on my wife and kids at home

-1
#1137 2 years ago
Quoted from pinlink:

I'm so tired of hearing "it worked for Big Buck Hunter!"

Big Buck Hunter is not pinball.

BBH is 1 single game with a very simple objective. Pinball is literally 1000's of different games all with complicated rules and different strategies which are hard to understand for the general public. It's very easy for the general public to understand how to play BBH, which makes it appeal to a MUCH larger audience and easier to get corporate sponsors.

You are comparing apples to oranges, Josh.

Shrinking the competitive pinball scene, and following what worked for BBH, is not the answer.

Your opinion is duly noted.

#1147 2 years ago
Quoted from jlm33:

A system allowing to rank everyone would be preferable IMO.
Think about Chess ELO ranking. Same system for world-class players and amateurs.
A Grand Master would have a 2700-2800 ELO, a novice 1500 or less. A 300 point-difference between two players means a lot.
(ELO does have shortcomings though)

We do have the IFPA Ratings System, which perhaps fills the void as a 'rankings for all' system.

We currently have non-points events on the calendar that don't feed WPPR, but do feed the IFPA Ratings System. That's likely to continue for any events that want to be on our calendar and submit results, but not be officially endorsed for inclusion in the WPPR system.

Here is a link to the rankings sorted based on the IFPA Rating for each player:

https://www.ifpapinball.com/rankings/overall.php?s=r&t=100

#1148 2 years ago
Quoted from JNX:

The objective has changed throughout the thread.

The stated intent does not necessarily equal the actual objective at certain times in the thread.

Some, like yourself, seem content to just accept whatever it is thrown out there, regardless of logic or impact.

Let's stop discussing it and it will miraculously change into a logical, well thought out, effective strategy...

The objective has been the same on this campaign going back years before the announcement:

"The objective of the International Flipper Pinball Association (IFPA) is to elevate the awareness and visibility of pinball across the globe and generate media coverage and corporate backing to bring the sport of competitive pinball back into the spotlight."

Now the MESSAGING of how this was communicated has certainly changed, I'll give you that. We focused too much on what the money was for, and not on the services the IFPA has provided for years at no charge, that we're now leveraging as a paid service for the masses who are interested (for the above stated objective).

I'm all for continuing to discuss this forever. We can go back and forth on how and why you don't think this is going to work . . . but is that an actual discussion? To me it's simply you disagreeing with our methodology, and that's fine, but don't I also have the right to disagree with you?

If you have any more discussion points that you want to get into, I don't mind discussing every single last one of them. I'm either a gluton for punishment, or really passionate about what we're doing . . . or a bit of both.

#1151 2 years ago
Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

local pots are not the same thing as an online 3rd party pot that others not doing your local event can win what your local group put's in to it.

Joe - This issue will be addressed. For any area where this is an issue, those funds will go to the IFPA as an administrative fee for being endorsed. They will NOT be paid back out. I'm keeping them. What I do with them later will be our business.

#1154 2 years ago
Quoted from Whysnow:

1. Want to have your ranking tracked? Annual fee of $5 Dont pay and you are repressed from being visible but still factor in as Player 1, 2, 3, 4, etc...

Having a website full of tournament results where 92% of the players listed say "Suppressed Player" isn't something I think is positive for the IFPA with this solution. Plus the money to be raised is not significant enough to matter (see previous post about how many people in the US register at no charge).

Quoted from Whysnow:

2. Want to be eligible for IFPA based SCS and National events? Then pay $1 per person for the prize pool as outlined from Josh
3. Dont care about the IFPA SCS or Nationals, then just dont pay $1 per event and you are all good, just cant compete in the IFPA based end of year events.

I get this as a compromised alternative, except that we lose our biggest point of leverage to get those players 'not interested' in SCS to help fund this whole thing. The money raised by strictly pulling from those interested in the SCS/Nationals dwarfs being able to pull from the entire field of events. We need those TD's and players that care about WPPR's and the entertainment they provide to fuel this fire.

To me the best way to see who will pay the $1 fee is with the only alternative being . . .

pasted_image (resized).jpeg

#1156 2 years ago
Quoted from shimoda:

ever heard the tale of the frog in a pot of water?

So because the $1 endorsement fee goes over so well . . . we try the next year to bump it up to $2?

-or-

The $1 endorsement fee goes over so poorly . . . we bump it up to $2 to try and chase after our losses of all of the events that dropped out of being IFPA endorsed?

I just need to know which path is more likely

#1158 2 years ago
Quoted from fosaisu:

You obviously haven't heard this tale before. In the end, IFPA slowly boils all competitive pinball players to death. The funny thing is, they don't even notice it's happening ...

I heard the frog jumped out of the pot before we even turned the flame on in protest of the whole thing

#1160 2 years ago
Quoted from TigerLaw:

Yup, I think the IFPA will be stunned when they see how many states will have this sort of legal problem - Louisiana is one of them. They will need to work this out in some way.

Absolutely. For Louisiana if this is a statewide issue then we'll collect those funds and put them to use towards IFPA expenses instead of towards the LA SCS/Nationals pool.

#1164 2 years ago
Quoted from shimoda:

Hilton's long response with alternatives seems to me to contain some potential alternatives that could likely do just what Josh/IFPA want and they don't seem to be any part of a consideration. If this was just a post of what was going to happen, hell or highwater (ie. IFPA has decided, there is no discussion), then it makes no sense to participate in a faux 'discussion' of the changes. However, since you (Josh/IFPA) have engaged in conversation then it might suggest you'd be open to re-examining the 'experiment' from the perspective a scientist might take - try to the most feasible experiment that poses the least potential harm to the existing system. The mixed $5 admin fee and $1 state/NCS fee seems like a viable alternative even if it has issues. To essentially close off discussion seems disingenuous when you've been participating so far. Though, in all fairness, you've never suggested you were taking suggestions really but then it begins to feel less like IFPA, and more like JFPA.

Nothing is ever final until it's actually implemented. Had I pushed this to the State Reps first and had overwhelming negative feedback, it wouldn't have made it out of that level of discussion. Now that's it's pushed publicly (Facebook/Pinside/Tilt Forums), there seems to be this sense that if I don't compromise then I'm not listening.

I'm definitely listening, and am following through on things based on the MAJORITY of the feedback I'm getting. That feedback being mostly positive for the exact methodology we're implementing.

You mentioned Hilton's alternatives as something that was viable. I tried to clearly respond why I don't think that will work to meet our goals. To me that's "positive discussion" between Hilton and myself, that the community can follow along with. It was definitely taken into consideration on my end . . . I simply don't agree with that plan of action.

#1165 2 years ago