I hope no TDs are actually that shitty to new players. Most of this statement is false.

True, you don't contribute 0.5 points to the value of the event until you get to five, but you are absolutely ranked, have a ranking (and other statistics, just like every other player), are able to win money, and the points you earn count towards qualifying in SCS (and towards your international ranking).

If you're in an active area, you can play enough that you start contributing sooner than "about a half a year".

Again, the only thing they aren't doing is adding 0.5 points to the event...and I don't understand why that element would override all of the other things listed and keep someone away from competitive pinball. You're aware why that rule is in place right? Because TDs were gaming the system in a way that made it unfair to newer players.

...almost as much the top players enjoyed all the free points from beating dozens of people who have never played competitive pinball before.

This is a shame. Just because there is drama and added complexity regarding WPPRs, there is no reason you need to be dragged down by this. Pick a format that your participants are happy with, and run that same format every time. You only need to know how to calculate TGP for one type of event, and there are lookups online now.

If you or your participants care about WPPRs, then you'll end up spending a little extra time balancing TGP and format. If they don't care about WPPRs, then just pick whatever is easiest and most fun and just don't concern yourself with WPPRs.

I had a TD tell me he was stopped doing tournaments, and the main complaint was because of how annoying it was that he had to figure out which position to report when people tied. The system displays an error message and literally tells you what number to fill in. It adds about 20 seconds to make multiple corrections. I guess everyone has a different straw that breaks the camel's back.

I agree that the points seems too small for the magnitude of the event, but most of me thinks there shouldn't be any points awarded at all (for SCS or Nationals), since the IFPA explicitly states that prohibiting players based on skill would make it ineligible for WPPR endorsement. https://www.ifpapinball.com/faq/

Yeah people take the tournament seriously, but they already won more points than everyone else to get there. Then they get to play in a tournament with only the top point earners, and get more free points. ("Free points" because others are locked out of competing for them).

And as whysnow mentions, since it happens in the following calendar year, it gives all of the best players from the previous year a nice head start on the rest of the field.

They are absolutely relevant in chess, and are calculated as such. But you are comparing a Ranking System (IFPA ranking, which is based on attendance and performance in recent events) to a Rating System (Chess ratings (ELO perhaps?), which compares the relative skill between players, and has nothing to do with attendance, frequency, or recency).

The IFPA already has a Rating system, it's on your player page and it's called IFPA Rating...it's just that no one uses that number for anything.

SCS and Nationals results can/should be included in your IFPA Rating, but they should not award points (which affect your IFPA Ranking).

This is a ridiculous example, but imagine holding a tournament in January where anyone can attend. Each month thereafter, hold another tournament where only the top 25% of the field from the previous month are invited. Yes, you're playing harder and harder opponents, but you're continually offering point opportunities to the top players that aren't available to anyone else.

There are great reasons that tournaments must be open to all to be able to award WPPR points, and I don't think SCS, Nationals, or any other tournament should be exempt. It's a slippery slope that might stroke the egos at the top a little more (and give the rest of us something to talk about), but it makes it even harder for the people at the bottom to catch up.

(Aside: no one pays enough attention to Rating and Eff Percent when talking about skill levels. Eric Stone, who just won Nationals and Pin Masters? I've seen multiple times referred to as an "underdog", yet he was 14th IN THE WORLD in Eff Percent...but only 170ish in Ranking, because he's relatively new to tournaments.)

Well, I think most individual sports do use a Ranking. Golf, tennis...I'm sure there are others. If there is only Rating, then we're stuck with people at the top of the list long after they've retired.

It's more interesting to use Ranking because it changes every month/week/day. And there is more to talk about.

I'd argue the Pinside Top 100 is boring for this reason: it's a Rating system. So we're stuck with TZ and MM at the top until maybe once every 10 or 20 years, something even better comes along to dethrone it...if at all.

I'm not sure why Chess doesn't seem to use a Ranking system. It seems like the culture there is more about Ratings...and reaching certain number milestones is more like moving up the chain of command titles...or like karate with belt colors.

(Disclaimer: I don't know a ton about the high level chess world).

It doesn't matter if the points are "completely statistically irrelevant" for "12 of the 16 players". It awards points for an event which is restricted based on skill, which is prohibited by the IFPA's own rules.

I'm not on an ongoing crusade about this, but my feelings came out because there was a suggestion that the SCS should be given a multiplier to award even more points.

Can that tournament then explicitly exclude people who earned points from the state championship?

Someone who got into B division should not be receiving more points than someone who qualified higher than them but was unable to play in B due to restrictions. If TPF did it differently, then they are breaking the rules and you should report it.

This is also illegal and should not be allowed.

I'm not going to do that, but your posts are helping me understand why there is so much complaining about the IFPA and WPPR points from the people down in Texas.

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...."

I am in Colorado where we don't have any of these neighboring state issues, so take this with a grain of salt. If you're in a state with so few tournaments that someone can make the state finals playing one or two times, then there is no way to avoid this issue.

In Colorado, you need to play at least 15 or 20 tournaments to make it, so it's hard to have too much sympathy for a state where locals can barely play all year and the just show up in and be in the State Chmpionship.

As a large square state where most of the action happens in the middle, we don't have this issue. But if someone wanted to come down from Wyoming 20 times a year, why would I care if they won the state but their address happens to be across the border?

There are tons of large cities near the borders of states. Should people in western Indiana not be able to play in Chicago even though they live closer than many of the Illinois 'locals'?

If your locals care about WPPRs and the SCS, then unfortunately they'll have to beat whoever shows up to those tournaments. If it's too easy, then hold more tournaments. If you don't like Texans coming in at all, then don't hold any WPPR tournaments, and hold your own State Championship worth no points where the winner doesn't go to nationals.

Sorry for the unsolicited advice, but I run a lot of events, and read all these threads because I enjoy thinking about this stuff and find it interesting that each state and community of players has its own set of unique challenges.

Edit: redacted feisty comment.

That's because you're a white dude.

Regardless, the people in the marginalized group are the ones who get to decide what makes them feel more included.