When you say 'classic', do you mean an 80s-style original game, or a modern game with 'classic' themes based on that list? Because I've tried my hand already at both of those, one of which would have been Circe's Animal Alehouse. My thinking for original themes tends to be along the lines of 'relatable human activity in a fantastic environment, as part of a world that feels much larger, the pinball game being a microcosm of it'.

Mad Libs: The Pinball. :p

You know, it's just possible someone may be way ahead of this whole thread on ALL of the above.

I would absolutely NOT use the Danesi lock when its use was created so recently and you want this 'ideal' game to have its own personality.

There are also plenty of old devices that haven't had a mention. Don't know why you're restricting it to Bally/Stern type and ignoring the potential of roto-targets, kicking targets, spinning posts and the like.

Let's talk BoM. How much should we be willing to 'spend' on this hypothetical game? Is the point of the exercise mere wish-fulfilment, or is it intended to be thought of as though it could be a viable low-run production game at a sensible price, with all the restrictions that entails?

How 'exposed' should the pops be? Do you just mean plenty of space, or directly shootable, or capable of gobbing the ball down the middle?

Did interest in this thread fizzle when it stopped being taken seriously as an exercise that took into consideration all the steps and limitations necessary to create something potentially 'real'?

Well this topic died on its arse all of a sudden. Going to try and breathe some life back into it by dusting off one of my old designs from the Heighway days, squeezing it into the classic single-level Bally size and tinkering with it to tick all the design boxes brought up in the thread.

It's going to be single-level to keep the 'classic' period style, but it will be a more unconventional sort of layout. No ramps on this version, won't need them - the more sophisticated 46-inch 'modern' build, were it ever made, would already cater for that in its own way.

I feel the Danesi lock limits the number of ways a multiball can start though. Rules and mechanics-wise, it's designed for one purpose which it does brilliantly. It's also a 'trademark' device, and the last thing I'd want to do is 'challenge' Scott on his own terms with ideas he came up with. That's just begging for failure.

I don't think those in-lines on Jack Danger's game are being employed as a Danesi lock: you need more space in between each target, and each one needs to be a separate single-drop mechanism rather than being one complete unit. (Another reason I wouldn't use it: makes the BoM more expensive, especially if you're already committed to using drops elsewhere.)

Debating at the moment whether to opt for three trip-coil memory in-lines in one place, or a single drop at two different places that each guard a lock point. Bit reluctant to place a lock behind an in-line bank as the shot is also an upper flipper feed and will make the area look like a Fathom knock-off. Either way, multiball would be started by a magnet catch at the top; Beatles probably does this as well but the magnet's been in this core design for years and is part of the geometry and flow.

Funny that we brought up Fathom, because the way the layout revision is shaping up, if I'm creating this in a deliberately 1982-era style, the ideal theme from the poll list would be underwater-based, with the title being '20,000 Miles Under The Sea' (rather than Leagues if there's an insistence on being different from the Verne original). The title matches up perfectly with the features in the game around which the core early-80s score-and-bonus ruleset would be modelled, with an emphasis on letter-spotting.

Think I've decided not to put a lock eject behind an in-line bank and use a target instead that does its own thing. Reason being that unless the in-lines are set up to work like TNA or Fathom (both of which have been ruled out), or you place some other feature in between (which makes the in-lines redundant), once a ball is in there the whole shot is effectively dead until you qualify for multiball start. Nobody is going to like that when it's such an important flipper feeder that you're still encouraged to keep shooting.

Got a solution to the in-line and lock conundrum now that arranges the features in a different way, while allowing others to still chain together in the way that I want. Turns out the biggest consideration was available space - I was also hoping to create a captive ball chamber with five star rollovers and an end target in for variable points depending on the hit strength and number of lit stars, but there wasn't room for all that in one line. This different arrangement should work well though and be encouraging to shoot for, so I don't think players would be disappointed.

I was putting them in the captive ball area because captive ball shots frequently aren't clean, and travel distance was what would create the challenge (see Mystic for a good example). It just happened to require a longer trail for the captive ball than I was able to manage, so that particular permutation with the stars has been effectively dropped.

The game is being designed with a very early-80s intent - moreso than TNA at this stage - but there would need to be a few concessions with more modern components here. The spinner for example would have to be the more modern microswitch variety that's mounted to the floor on one side, rather than the longer bracket between two posts and the weighted arm hanging down a hole. There just isn't room for the latter to work adequately. Similarly with what's been said about rollover stars, optos would be the way to go. Eject pockets will employ the 30-degree coil kicker from behind instead of the old arc-arm type that's pulled up from the front. The point is, as long as this looks like a solid-state layout, and plays like one, that's what matters here.

Here's what I have at this point, getting close to completion with the basic VP 9.9 build and undergoing refinement and flipper playtesting. The two main things left to finish are the left orbit area to and from the magnet, where the spinner will be housed near the entrance, and the centre shot. Making a regular shot that loops around the right would be easy; the problem so far is in trying to house another lock at the top of the shot that has enough space to reliably kick out a ball when another approaches it, without risk of the other ball falling back down the centre. At one point I was looking at an up-kick hammer lower down that balls could drop into, but couldn't make enough room to fit the necessary requirements. You'll notice the centre is one of the tighter shots; this is intentional since either flipper can access it and I don't want an easy repeatable loop with a stop-start element, when there is a perfectly good repeatable orbit on the game already.

A few notes:

Captive ball chamber houses the requested in-lines, rather than the lock shot on the right, since I didn't want to copy Fathom. Instead the upper flipper feeder will encourage players to keep shooting it with three seperate features; the rollover chain, the status of which is tied to the scattered standup targets; the eject pocket at the top; and the guard target in front. Giving this target a trip coil means the in-lines don't need them; also, because the in-lines aren't in the proximity of the lock, they aren't automatically tied by default to any rules concerning multiball start, although that option still exists. Once the locks are active shoot the single drop, then shoot the top right lock behind it, shoot the lock that will go in the centre shot, then either shot to the magnet, which will release all three balls to feed to a different location.

Pop bumper area can be entered from several ways; the shooter lane, the magnet drop, the top lanes, the upper right flipper, and from various target rebounds. This will give plenty of bumper action wth multiple potential exits including a feed to the left flipper. The exposed bottom pop also negates the need for a left slingshot and should give the game a more distinct feel of its own. Dual inlanes on the left allow for a bounceback outlane in addition to this that doesn't require a gate. A ball that rolls up when caught by the left flipper should bounce quite cleanly off the inlane post and come straight back.

Also, in keeping with the early-80s feel, different post types are being kept to the minimum where possible; star posts, mini-posts and spacer spools for holding plastics and gates.

pinside v1 (resized).jpg

It's a blueprint exported from the Visual Pinball editor, with the annotations added in Photoshop.

Bally thought so in 1972.

Inductive sensor switch. Check the Alien thread where the switches have been reverse-engineered for supply as spares.

It would certainly be possible to install another 3-bank there but only use two drops, Bally and Stern did similar more than once. An extra target could go behind.

They literally did that with Gamatron. Even has the same software as Flight 2000.

Hmm, I wonder how practical it would be to think of this exercise like a potential 'conversion kit' for an old Bally or Stern machine. It's designed to fit into the same playfield dimensions.

X's & O's, I think. Two slings to toggle the targets, but neither of them fire.

Anywhere you can get rubbered passive bumper assemblies from (the sort found on Stern Meteor)? I think I could place one in with a little rejigging.

The Nine Ball thread and Pinball Resource gave me all the answers I need for the passive bumper, so in it goes.

Version 2...

Centre shot complete, shootable from either flipper. Adapted a design cue from my Harlem Globetrotters in how on old Ballys a shot with a pass-through eject at the top would use a directed ball entry and a strike plate to essentially bounce the ball into the pocket, rather than risk the ball skipping over it at speed. I was hoping to be able to place the hole so that a switch trigger closeby could spit out an already locked ball before its replacement reached the hole, but I couldn't find an arrangement that was guaranteed to work within the space without risk of a fallback, a jam, or both balls ending up in play. There wasn't enough of an enclosed space to play with. Instead, the trip-coil drop target is moved from the right shot (where strictly speaking it doesn't really need to be) to the centre, where it acts as a controllable safety guard. A ball that hits the drop and comes back should land safely on the left flipper.

Squeezing in a classic-style spinner rather than having to use a more modern microswitch type was a pain in the arse, but I finally got it in.

Quite a lot of slight space compression around the lower field that you probably can't see, but it adds up to enough to place a passive bumper instead of the two targets above the pops. Gives a more interesting and unpredictable dynamic to this area.

Five standups and two three-banks of drops now become three standups (plus the bottom one which now works with the passive bumper) and three three-banks (with one drop target absent, a common Bally design tactic). The upper three and right two are linked together to act like a single five-bank, and won't reset until all five are down. This leaves the three standups now placed behind them more exposed for longer, and will be key targets in the game.

Suggested multiball rules: locks are active when all three rollovers on the right are lit by their respective behind-drop standup hits (any order the first time, in sequence for subsequent times). Lock balls in both eject pockets, then either shot to the catch magnet will release all three balls at once.

pinside v2 (resized).jpg

Of course - that's what it's here for. Theme isn't definitive yet either, though I have a gameplay style in mind that could work.

The position of the pops area is countered by the flipper offset from the centre, and with two right flippers the shot density and flipper usage is about even. Personally I love this pop arrangement and the unpredictability it gives - I'd say there was also enough of a hazard from the exposed pop aiming at the right outlane. Thus if I was going to put an additional risk-reward shot in and not make the difficulty more excessive it would have to be from the right flipper to a target placed in front of the bottom pop, but I don't think you'd really want that.

I'm also trying to keep the total coil/solenoid count to sixteen or less (because reasons) - that's one factor for the passive bumper, and just by being there it'll generate more pop bumper activity. In fact, rebound angles and ball direction into the pops has been given the highest design priority here. Plus, it isn't often that pops are used as potential flow devices (if ever).

There is a strong right flipper shot; it's the spinner with the potential for repeated loops. Give that some build-up score potential and players will be shooting for that all day long.

Well you're missing the exit between the left drops and the bottom pop, which has an exit arc that's most likely to hit the slingshot. Also any upward bump from the top pop to the right side of the passive will exit down and to the right, which has a much wider arc. It's another key factor for the passive being there rather than angled standups, and overall the bumper effects are a lot less predictable than you think.

Possible alternative: remove the bottom pop, push the other pops down a little to make room for the passive bumper to be replaced by the missing pop to bring it back to three, then in the vacated space on the lower left, place a pair of spinning posts which the player can shoot for, and the pops will also hit to randomise the ball.

OK, so a quick experiment with spinning post produces some... results. Couldn't say for sure yet whether it makes things any better in the lower area without more organising, but it's an intriguing dynamic, you definitely want to shoot for them, and they do act as a 'bumper' in their own right.

Version 3: The Search For Compromise (aka Cracked It With The Spinning Posts).

You probably can't tell from the blueprint, but GODDAMN what a difference those spinning posts make when put in the right place. Yes they block the pops off a bit and make them less exposed, but more than make up for in acting as a randomising factor in its own right that the player *will* want to shoot at when called upon to as a risk/reward feature. Necessary to this was a complete overhaul of the left inlane/outlane area since the potential flow back to the flipper has been radically altered and a lot less predictable; opening up the area and creating a crossover arrangement while keeping three lanes was the way to do it. Kept the passive bumper because ner, I like it. In fact the only thing that's actually gone is the namby-pamby bottom target that you don't miss.

I'm going to be frank here; I've been playtesting the digital VP 9.9 version and I REALLY like the way it flips. For me, it hits that sweet spot where there's clearly plenty to do with enough different features, but doesn't feel overly crowded - pretty much everything on the game looks like it belongs there. It's not 'perfect' yet, bound to need a few refinements and balance tweaks here and there, and obviously you can't judge it for sure the same way as an actual whitewood; but at this point as far as base layout goes, I'd be confident in calling it finished enough to move onto the next step - drawing up CAD diagrams so that said whitewood could be built up by a team, as long as all the necessary parts were available.

pinside v3.jpg

I suppose the next thing I could do would be to mock up an insert layout. I know most 'classic' games, even extravagantly artistic ones like Centaur or Fathom, utilise the theme on a surface level and the inserts don't represent anything other than build-up points, bonuses and multipliers. Personally I prefer the kind of letter-spotting rules that link the whole playfield to the bonus so everything has value in being shot for. Spellouts however need more relevancy to the theme, at least in name. What do people prefer?

I guess another better question would also be, without a theme attached yet how many Pinsiders would be looking at this layout and thinking "I'd want to play this"?

Good questions.

The ball against the rubber could sit on the centre point of the shaft, but the only time such a trap would be conceivable during play is if the pop failed to fire. Bumper skirts when set up properly are raised above the playfield floor, and the trigger radius of the bumper is wider than the shaft in the centre. The skirt is also spring mounted and has its own push against the ball. There's not to say that such a trap can't occur in any game, it's not actually difficult to set a ball against a pop on any old game that's switched off and have it sit there in equillibrium.

In the second example, the trap can't happen unless the gate was to be physically opened and the ball stuck under it. Again, you couldn't guarantee that it wouldn't ever happen, but a simple nudge would be sufficient to release the ball for either trap if it actually did.

If folks are interested, here's the bare-bones screenshot of the game in its current form.

pinside design screenshot v1 (resized).jpg

Thread bump, since folks have been asking about design programs and this may be a useful example.

For this game, VP 9.9 with my own tailored object set. I use what I know works.

I haven't had any such difficulties in the simulator, though a whitewood could produce different results. The rubbers will also be nullified a little by having a third post in the centre of each band, so there is less spring movement. The optimum distance between each pop in my opinion should ideally be no less than 1-1/4 inch between two 3-inch caps; Bally/Williams games followed this example, but some modern Sterns like AC/DC do squeeze them closer together to deliberately create longer bump periods.

Yes, that's how it's been built to this point. Accurate sized playfield and components though so a real build should not be an issue. Wouldn't be the first time I've done things this way; digital test first, CAD second.