Indiana checking in! Watch as I get called for a job interview that weekend....

Wisconsin for me! (j/k)

No 'weak sauce' in the Sharpe family . . . I'll be playing in IL

I can only hope the rest of IL takes that attitude!

I'm going to Minnesota. Interested to hear the format and rules beforehand though.

How many WPPR points are going to be awarded for the Championship tournament?

Thinking of going to Ohio or Kentucky as I love going to the border.

And to avoid the Rosa bloodbath?

Just so you know, it'll either be held in Columbus (my place) or Cincinnati (metalliks)

Rosa bloodbath isn't a worry as the machines used won't be his anti-gravitar setup ones. Just haven't been to Metallik's in a few years. Of course depending on your line-up if held at your place would be fun. Always like meeting new people.

As for Kentucky the trip would be the reward as I could stop at a few places on the way there/back. Also if rumors are true I can finally check off a win against my all time nemisis.

Should be a fun time no matter where I decide to play.

Some locations will have more than 7 games available in the tournament, so game choice will mean more for those states where there are exactly 7 available.

Seeding rules should be 'standard sports bracket' rules . . . if I'm missing something let me know

All IFPA State Pinball Championships will use the SAME FORMAT. Please do let me know if that ends up not being the case, as I will have to chat with that state rep afterwards.

Every State Championship is worth a base value of 25 WPPR points, plus normal formula increases, and will count in the qualifying for the 2014 SCS for that state.

Bring that sucker down here, games are nice n fast

That does not seem right since they are not open events and a limited to 16 people.

Gives a distinct advantage to the 2013 SCS people for 2014 qualifying. For example, the winner of WI 2013 SCS will automatically qualify for 2014 unless WI events increase dramatically for next year.

Just a thought, but I would like to see the SCS not be for points.

They are open events. All you need to do is finish in the top 16 or whatever in your state. Anyone has the potential to do that, therefore it's open.

Closed events are where something other than your skill excludes you from the cut. E.G. seniors (no kids) and B/C at PAPA (many players specifically excluded by rule)

You looking at me?

It's because I suck. Just going to as many tourneys as I can to try and get over being nervous. SCS is going to be a blast!

I don't mean to rock the boat here, but you might be mistaken, or I've been given the wrong information...

So in a way you're saying that a "B" Division that doesn't allow players in because of their high IFPA point standing CAN count for points because the standings are skill based?

The Tournament I've run hasn't given points for the "B" division because it excludes highly ranked/skilled players.

Just wondering if there can be an "official" clarification here.

I can officially clarify . . .

For "B" division tournaments, there is typically a pre-determined list of players that aren't allowed to compete. Typically it's based on not allowing players that have won a subset list of competitions to compete, or someone ranked higher than some WPPR rank to compete. That tournament is restricting specific players from competing based on skill. (Same goes for Womens/Juniors/Seniors divisions that also exclude a specific group of players from competing based on specific restrictions)

For the State Championship Series, the 16 players for each state can literally be ANYBODY. While the field is LIMITED (capped at 16 players), it's not RESTRICTED based on age, gender, race, skill, etc.

That's the biggest difference.

Ok, I understand. Thanks for clearing that up. Wishful thinking on my part.

Just for clarification, can I run events that are limited to 16 players but not restricted and also have them be worth full point value?

That would open up ideas I have for other fun events that do not logistically run well with 40+ people (things like pinball crawls to local collections all in one day)

If I make the cut I'll be playing, looking forward to it.

Our current rules work that way, although we are currently testing adjusting the base value based on the number of players that participate (so this could lead to any tournament with limited numbers - including the State Championships - having a reduced base value based on the field size).

Assuming everyone on the planet has an equal opportunity to one of those 16 spots, it's currently not a problem.

Thanks.

I assume "equal opportunity to one of those 16 spots" would be as simple as posting to the IFPA calendar and allowing registration to the limited # cap based on order of being signed up?

You got it!

I have a new goal to try and make this - although CA is a tough state!

My son and I are playing in the Florida State Pinball Championships.

Looking forward to it

Now that's quality family time! Got my son into pinball it too late to make it this year. Still, great memories.

I chose poor wording. This bit:

"Closed events are where something other than your skill excludes you from the cut. E.G. seniors (no kids) and B/C at PAPA (many players specifically excluded by rule)"

...was supposed to mean 'something other than your inability to qualify.' Perhaps I should have written 'other than your lack of skill'

Exclusionary tourneys would include the 'you're too good' skill-based rules at B/C PAPA, which I described. The SCSs don't have any such rules - anyone can make an attempt to qualify by playing in state events. I think we're on the same page, just misunderstood.

I'll be trying my luck in Missouri!

Great ideas Frax!

Side note > I will not be going to the WI SCS > If Ken is bad then I am awful as I have played in 10 events and will likely not qualify

Josh - I know between the launch party change and weekday rule that we've probably pushed you out of competing in IFPA endorsed events in the future. We're pleased that you're sticking it out and supporting the IFPA by attending the Texas State Championship.

Every change we make (and will continue to make) is always intended to be for the 'greater good' of the integrity of the rankings, knowing full well that anytime we make a change where someone moves up in the rankings, there's an equal number of players negatively impacted by the change and moving down the rankings.

If we allow the WPPR system to be exploited by organizers taking advantage of the current rules, then it will ultimately lead to the demise of the system. IMO all sports continuously evaluate their rules and rankings systems to try and make things better as new issues arise.

We're running simulations using 25 players and 32 players for tournaments to receive full base value (25 players meaning a tournament would get 1 point per player, up to 25 players, and then full value for any count higher than that). Besides worrying about areas around you that draw ~16 players, we have complete countries where they are lucky to draw double-digit counts of players. These are all things we have to balance, which is why most of our changes endure months of testing and tweaking until we feel like it's the best balanced decision for the sport.

We're also trying to incorporate a reduction in base value based on the format of the event, so if you win a tournament that consisted of playing a game 'one time', it's worth far less compared to a tournament with multiple game qualifying + finals. The more data used to determine the winner would lead towards a higher base value. As you can imagine this is a much harder task to try and quantify.

It's certainly a tough task to balance, but in order to try and help build up competitive pinball in these lesser developed countries, we have to focus on making sure there is interest in the system from those outside the top 3 markets. Prior versions of the WPPR system have had large player bases from countries opt out of even being ranked because of how much it simply favored the US over everyone else.

You're welcome to see any data you would like if you have any ideas for how to improve the system. I'm not too computer savvy but I can export a giant excel file will all sorts of excellent data to play with.

The SCS is done exactly this way. The slate is wiped clean for 2014 and will be based only on the changes that are implemented for the 2014 season. Because of the 3-year rolling period of the rankings, it's important to us that the prior 2 years of data are being compared in a similar manner to current rules for determining a players world ranking.

If all of these changes during the year ultimately had an impact of moving you from 4th to 7th in Texas, that's not something we would consider a big material change. Had you moved from 4th to 57th . . . those are the kind of changes we try and investigate why/how it's happening.

I'll just chime in and say that I'm a big fan of the ifpa method. Trying to work my way up the state rankings has been a lot of fun, and a much more attainable goal than trying to get up there in the world rankings.

That was definitely the motivation behind the creation of the SCS. With the World Championship there's only 64 spots (really 63 spots) to go around for the entire planet. For the SCS there's nearly 450 spots for just US players. With that many spots spread across the country, it allows us to reward a much deeper player base than just the top 50/100 guy.

We'll have to wait and see how all of these finals work out before we actually make the decision to do it again . . . but all signs point to a big thumbs up!

A recent example: two tournaments were held in Texas the weekend of December 7. The PAPA Circuit event at Pinballz Arcade had 47 players, including 10 of the top 100 players in the IFPA rankings, and first place was worth 41.38 pointz. The same weekend, an event in Keller, TX had 8 players, none in the top 100, and first place was worth 26.17.

What's more difficult, fourth in a 47-player event with many top players, or first in an 8-player event? According to the current IFPA point format, first place in the 8-player event is worth more.

This doesn't seem like a good idea for a system whose purpose is to rank players, though it definitely provides an incentive for people to make their own events.

Looks like I qualified in Georgia here, by the skin of my teeth.

Whaaaaat? You mean the same organization that has Pinburgh as a minor event?

That is a good point. It is likely exceedingly difficult to meet both the constraints of the need to evenly rank players and incentive for people to actually make/host/run more events.

Given your TX example, I would think the current rules alone would help to equalize the difficulty as people have a choice. Seems like if an individual thinks they have a better shot at winning in the 8 person tourney and netting more points then they could always choose to play that one rather than the 47 player event?

I actually like the current point system and think a primary goal should be to get more events hosted.

I think the extra points added to the base for more people works pretty well. Many of the top 100 people need more than 25 base points so by them not attending the 8 person event, it likely provided an opportunity for other less skilled people to have some fun and get some points.

Bowen - It's no secret you've had issues with the methods to our "website points" madness of trying to rank players accurately, while at the same time giving incentive for people to create events and grow the sport to make it more accessible to more players.

It's an act we've been trying to balance for nearly 8 years, and it only continues to get more challenging as the active player base continues to increase and get interested in the rankings.

The big issue for us to work out is how far to move that line in trying to answer that exact question:

"What's more difficult, fourth in a 47-player event with many top players, or first in an 8-player event?"

Is it as simple as the 8-player event gets a base value of 8 (based on 25 players for full base), so Josh now gets 18.17 points for 1st?

Then the question changes to:

"What's more difficult, fifth in a 47-player event with many top players, or first in an 8-player event?"

If you have any suggestions as to how you would answer that question . . . I'd love to hear your thoughts. It's clear from your comments that we're not even close to a 1st place value for the event Josh played in that you feel is fair.

Wait 10 more days . . . and it'll be retroactive so you can jump back ahead of ZAC

I will say that if you start handicapping smaller events dramatically then that will be less incentive to try and help grow the sport and host more events.

There is a fine line and I can see the desire from highly ranked players to have caps put on events with fewer people playing them, but burn your hosts and it all becomes a moot point.

Hilton - That's precisely why I'm interested in Bowen's answer to his own question on the value for those two tournaments. He's a far smarter man than I when it comes to math 'stuff', so maybe he has the answer that more closely finds that line of fairness for rankings and motivating organizers to host events.