So if our local league has 40 players, but only half decide to pay the fee, will our league now only be worth half the points?

Well...that just sucks.

Seems like the points should remain the same, just not awarded to those that did not pay. If I beat 20 people in league (some of which are the best in the state), but none of them pay the fee, I would still like my points to reflect that. Seems like I would be punished for others not paying the fee.

Seems like this is going over like a lead balloon so far, yet the IFPA is dead set on rolling out this "science experiment" as Josh is calling it.

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 feel like we need a poll

Edit: Poll added https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/are-you-in-favor-of-the-ifpa-changes-for-2018-poll#post-3690830

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?

Big Buck Hunter is being brought up a lot.

The problem is that BBH is not pinball. BBH is one single game that is very easy to understand for people who don't actually play the game. You shoot some animals, and you don't shoot others.

Pinball on the other hand, is not just one single game. There are literally 1000's of different games. All with different and complicated rules, and with different strategies. Very difficult for a non-player to watch a game of pinball and understand fully what the player's objectives are and why.

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

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.

How will success for this be measured? I haven't seen that yet.

Folks continue to use the "it's just a dollar!!!" argument.

It is not "just a dollar". We have covered this. It's $1 per event per person. It will also have a negative impact on bringing new players into the world of competitive pinball.

Give it a rest.

Yeah, you're just not getting it. Keep screaming "it's just a dollar!". Maybe we'll start to understand.

I think it's just $1 to cover everyone for the entire year.

For me it would end up at around $40-$60 per year. You can keep screaming at me that "it's just $1" but it's really not.

Sure I could just play less tournament/league pinball, and that's probably what will happen. But that sucks.

There are people in our local league stating that they will stop playing or play less as a result of this too.

This will hurt the world of competitive pinball (numbers wise). Not sure how anyone thinks it will actually help and bring in more people. That is laughable. If you disagree that is totally fine, but the "it's just a dollar" argument is old. It's also more work for the TD's and will complicate things.

For the "just 1 dollar" folks.

Imagine your cell phone company called you.

Phone company: "Hey, we are going to start charging you $1 for every phone call you make. But don't worry it's just a dollar!"
You: "But wait, that is going to really add up. I make a lot of calls."
Phone company: "No no no you aren't getting it. It is just 1 dollar."
You: "But I like to make calls, its fun and that is what I spend most of my free time doing."
Phone company: "I don't think you are getting it, it's really just 1 dollar. You can just make less phone calls if the $1 per call is a problem. We actually expect more people to use our service with this new plan!"

lol the point was to try and help out the "it's just $1" folks understand how it in fact is not "just $1". But I'm glad my awesome analogy took away from the point. Admittedly it was a lazy analogy.

It will cost me $50-$60 per year. If you want to explain to me how that is actually just $1, go for it.

I'm glad that the money is not an issue for most people here. The fact is, it will affect how much I (and others) play competitively which sucks IMO. Josh claims it will help bring more people to the hobby. I disagree. That's really it.

Yancy, aren't you the one that said this?

Anyway, I will try my best to make more money so that I can be on the same level as you guys. Yes $60 is a lot of money to me. I guess I should be ashamed.

How will the effectiveness of this plan be measured? Number of active players in IFPA?

Gotcha. How did you guys come to that number? Just curious.

Thanks for the explanation, Josh.

So it's all based on how much money is generated for the top players in the US. Doesn't matter if the number of active players is cut in half, as long as the elite players are making a little more cash then this was a success.

Still can't see how this is going to help bring in new people to pinball. I don't think larger pots are going to draw in a ton of new people who think they can compete with the big dogs for the $$, or more media coverage. That's like me seeing huge prize pools in golf so I decide to learn the sport in hopes of competing with the pros and winning. But I can't see the future, and am bad with analogies.

Yeah, you really are missing it.

Wouldn't that be a result of growing pinball the year prior (2017), and not a result of implementing a fee?