Bobby Orr's Power Play
Bally, 1978
Goin' Nuts
Gottlieb, 1983
Panthera
Gottlieb, 1980
Royal Rumble (WWF)
Data East, 1994
Tee'd Off
Gottlieb, 1993You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider infinitelives.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.
Quoted from Whysnow:Is there a new announcement I missed?
Been busy today and only skimming.
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???
potentially in 2019 after the 2018 changes have happened and the results of those changes to the landscape.
Quoted from CNKay:Not gonna read through this whole thing that's on fire here.
But I will give you my feedback from last event I went to. Buffalo Turdament. It had two division s A and B and anyone higher than a certain ranking could not be in B. I was going to be allowed into B as only my third or fourth event and I am not all that good. Plus I finally got my son's interest peeked and told him you'll be a world ranked player, so I got him to come and try it.
Well it looks to me like it wasnt even thing. I see no history of event for my profile and my son didn't get one created like I did my first tournament event. And it was the first event that was a match play type not that pump and dump crap.
So still on the fence about the tournament scene. I know my son can't show his friends anything. You know like the Xbox achievements they love that stuff.
I can remember I liked the occasional game of bowling, then got talked into a league once. Weekly fees plus game fees plus yearly membership fee. To get your offical bowlers union card.
Is this the same thing for pinball?
are your names on this :
https://www.ifpapinball.com/tournaments/view.php?t=17701
might want to contact the tournament director if not
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.
Quoted from ifpapinball: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.
Thanks for addressing those points.
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?
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.
Quoted from ifpapinball: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.
I don't really care about the low end finishers cause they didn't do well enough for more points, I think 18 for the winner is a very nice increase from 12 tho.
Yeah I understand that the limited number is what kills it that's why I was curious if it has ever been discussed to evaluate how SCS is graded out. Doesn't sound like it's a consideration tho
Quoted from Frax:And yet I was not allowed to even attempt to qualify for B-div @ TPF because of my ranking....nevermind that B-Div awards IFPA points, which BY THE RULES, B DIVISIONS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO... So let's actually follow *all* the rules, stop accepting tournaments that have skill-restricted B-divisions that exclude players and then submit all their results as "A division on top, B division after that, then remaining qualifier attempts"?
I don't see why not. Tournaments have been allowed to happen here in Dallas that were at a private residence, that were limited in number of participants, supposedly open registration.....but what really happened was that invites were sent to people early on, and accepted, but when the location host decided he wanted some of his buddies to play, people with "slots" were booted and not allowed to attend. That qualified for points, so I don't see why your suggestion shouldn't. (To be 100% honest, I talked to IFPA about this specific case and decided not to press the issue because a lot of my friends were involved and had NOTHING to do with this stupid, stupid decision...it would not have been fair to punish anyone but the two people that were directly responsible IMO.....but still....if IFPA knew that something blatantly broke the rules and they didn't disqualify it on their own cognizance, what am I then supposed to think at that point? )
Figure out when those people aren't available. Run it on a weeknight, away from their location, make it limited available slots and invite all your friends to "register" first.
B division results at TPF did not matter for WPPR points, we got our points based on our qualifying and missing A positions.
Quoted from Frax:So then the positions of B as far as ranking and IFPA points go were submitted as the qualifying results -only-, not by how people finished in B? Because the vast majority of tournaments I've ever gone to this hasn't been the case as far as I'm aware of. Frankly, I didn't even think to correlate the final reported standings with the qualifying results. It's entirely possible I've just glossed over this in prior years, because I've been consistently qualifying in A for whatever part I was focused on....didn't get there this year, and was just shy of B. Now I'm genuinely curious if I've been making an observational error in the past, but I don't really have a way to go back and look because I don't have prior qualification records for everything I've played in. Interesting. I guess for me specifically it won't even matter when this year is done, because I'll certainly be below 500th with all the points decay from 25-point base stuff.
I'll eat crow if I'm wrong...it happens. Thanks for filling me in on that.
Yeah, I was not sure how it worked when the results came in but noticed that people who went out in round 1 of B were listed higher in the IFPA standings than people who advanced. I emailed Josh and Colin and found out how the rule works. So at least for this year that is how it was reported. I made A last year so not sure how the B went down but if the neverdrains link is still active you could cross reference those standings to the IFPA reported standings. I am assuming since Colin knew the rule and he ran the event last year that he reported it correctly.
Quoted from DNO:I wouldn't pay it. Then I can play B division! That's the problem, and I think it would be a MAJOR problem.
The rankings would become so inaccurate, and tons of players would refuse to pay, ruining the entire system.
And if they still rank people for handicapping purposes, then why would I need to pay?
People need to let this idea go, it just won't work.
The problem I see, is if some major events (say PAPA/Pinburgh) decide they don't want to pay. Then what?
I guess an exemption for major tourneys could be implemented, but Hiltons head would explode at that point.
Can't wait to see what the pot is like in Pennsylvania state championships with PAPA and Pinburgh dollas 
Quoted from desertT1:I'm all for funding the SCS finals and Natls, but having to start asking everyone for their dollar at events that used to just be coin drop feels lame. I don't think any regulars will care here, but it doesn't change the fact that I feel like a panhandler in that situation.
.
If you do not already talk to the manager/owner of the location the event is being held at, it may behoove you to see if they will cover the IFPA fee's and keep your event free +coin drop. Even if 20 people show up (which it seems like your get closer to 10?) thats only $20 bucks outta the bar. They sell each of those 20 people a single beverage because of the event, they are still way ahead. This is an easy argument for you to win if they are hesitant as your event is bringing in paying customers. The event stays free, still get WPPR's and does not alienate the player base that is not welcome to fees.
If you can get this deal with the bar, then you would never even have to tell the player base about it, or you could tell them how the bar is sponsoring their membership/fees to the IFPA and score more brownie points with the owner of the joint.
new guy: how much is the tournament
td: $5 and $1 of that goes to registration fees
new guy: ok
or
td: $5 and the bar is covering everyones $1 registration fee so make sure to thank em!
Quoted from MrBally:Need to add "new guy's" reaction to 2nd scenario please.....
"hell yeah lets do some shots"
Quoted from Jdawg4422:No because it is still lying to the new players.
$5 entry and $1 goes toward registration fees is a lie.
$5 entry fee and $1 goes towards state and national prize pot would be the truth.
meh, the $1 does get you registered to the IFPA for WPPR points. the dollar is not going to the winners pot of that particular event and that has been established. it is given to the IFPA and at the end of the year the IFPA redistributes that $1 back to the State and National pool.
So the dollar serves two purposes, registration fee for the event and its WPPR's and they could have a chance to win it back at the end of the year. I am glad I'm not a TD but I know all of ours are not gonna be pulling any fast ones on any newbies...
I am so thankful for our community in Colorado and how this will not really have any impact on how our events are run. Hopefully everyone else can figure it out with a way that works for them and their player base, both current and new players alike. I cant think of any way our player base could be more welcoming and inclusive to all players, new and old and of all skill levels.
edit: we have established in this thread that there are many reasons, both legal and ethical, that people may have a problem with the direction the IFPA is going with this fee. I think the TDs will have ample enough time to figure out how to get the pertinent information to the player base. And yes, free based tournaments create a unique challenge as well and I will not dispute that.
Josh, perhaps on the calendar of events for IFPA tournaments you create a disclaimer with the information about the $1 fee, that way any new player that checks out upcoming events on the calendar reads it with the rest of the event info and is fully aware of the $1 fee atleast 30 days prior to the event.
Is there something wrong with the IFPA website? Says its unsafe to go to as the security certificate something or other has expired...
edit: ah, it works now, weird.
Quoted from Russell:Um....he did a little more than show up. He's a serious high level competitor.
I think it's lost in translation on how great Escher is. He is one of the best in the world, no doubt. And he's just going to get better. He's has more high level experience than most on pinside I'm sure. I mean his ifpa player number is 1605... meaning he was the 1,605th person to be ranked by the IFPA and had results going back to 2008.
https://www.ifpapinball.com/player.php?p=1605
Kevin and Ryan did a great interview with Adam and Escher on their podcast for those who don't know the story.
If some one is willing to take the time and money to play in all those events more power to them. To those that can't, your argument is that they have more important things going on, then it shouldn't bother them that they didn't make it. (because they have more important things going on)
I see the point you are trying to make and respect it, it is just that I don't have a problem with people playing a ton and grinding it out. They are dropping quarters in machines, buying beers and putting money in the pot that the "better players" can win; all of which is a good thing for pinball
Quoted from 85vett:Sounds like the "everyone should get a trophy" mentality of the world these days.
I'm of the opinion that only those that prove their skill is one of the top 16 in a state should get to play.
what is your suggestion on how to determine the "true" top 16?
if it is a true average of all events that is going to kill smaller events. I go to a monthly in fort collins that is worthless even if you win it compared to the denver events but I am trying to support the local scene. If I win and get like a point it will kill an average where the monthly at 1up colfax winner gets 20+ points. I go cause its fun and supports the business and the pinball community. If it had an impact on me being able to qualify for state (even winning a tourny worth peanuts) then i wouldnt go.
Quoted from 85vett:Got it ya'll are OK with lesser players pumping in more events to build points so they can play in a championship series to claim a state champion vs having a system that drives to put the top skilled players at the top.
Probably should stop calling it a championship then as it's not driving for the best and most consistent players. Just those whom have the luxury of playing in 60 plus events a year. Just saying.
If you think they can win then they probably deserve to be in the top 16
We also have no idea how many events are going to not take place next year because of the fee. They may not be able to play in 60 events if half those die
Quoted from 85vett:Fair enough but I still feel like it's going to be closer to 3-4 players which, to me, is a material difference.
All - I'm done muching up the thread and thanks for letting me speak my points without attack. I just feel their are bigger challenges than a $1 pay per event charge.
I think these are healthy conversations and if they lead to a better system that is awesome. if you have anymore thoughts or ideas that can help definitely add them to the thread!
Quoted from ifpapinball:Just FYI from our database guru:
January 2017 : 280 Tournaments - 227 were US and Canada Tournaments
January 2018 : 373 Tournaments (scheduled) - 302 are US and Canada Tournaments
out of curiosity, what % of tournaments never get submitted even when they were on the calendar? not necessarily regarding the fee, just in general do like 99% of events get submitted?
When is that WPPR Rating challenge thing going to be implemented? Is that still on track for 2018 as well?
When is the site going to update with the 2018 state info? Just curious to check out the look with the cap at 20/state, etc.
Quoted from ifpapinball:We had to re-write the entire process of how the standings are calculated, related to both the dynamic prize pool breakdown that's being calculated on the fly as well as the fact that we're now limiting qualifying to a player's top 20 events.
In prior years it was a simple "Custom Filter" that we manually created and then pulled into the player profiles.
It is on our to-do list for the standings status to show up on the player profile pages at some point. We just have to update how that gets pulled into those player profiles.
In the meantime Steve's link is correct:
https://www.ifpapinball.com/nacs/standings.php
Thanks!
You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider infinitelives.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.
Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.
Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!
This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/ifpa-charging-fees-for-tournaments-in-2018?tu=infinitelives and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.
Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.
Ogden, UT
Saint-denis-sur-richelieu, QC