(Topic ID: 59770)

Coast 2 Coast Pinball Episode 251 “The show where we come to the end.”


By C2CPinball

5 years ago



Topic Stats

  • 2,255 posts
  • 318 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 11 days ago by Apex
  • Topic is favorited by 117 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

There have been 305 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

IMG-4738 (resized).PNG
9D53DBF1-52B1-4B5E-B136-5855BFD19582 (resized).jpg
Enlight1 (resized).jpg
IMG-2168 (resized).JPG
IMG-2023 (resized).JPG
IMG-1864 (1) (resized).jpg
IMG-0990 (resized).jpg
BCC67040-B819-41A8-B34D-D59FEF1BAEB2 (resized).jpeg
Screen Shot 2018-08-02 at 7.52.28 AM (resized).png
IMG_0938 (resized).jpg
48611 (resized).jpg
FullSizeRender (6) (resized).jpg
5D6AB88E-C930-4875-9931-778C6A8B6B1A (resized).jpeg
IMG_9583 (resized).jpg
IMG-3423 (resized).PNG
IMG-2552 (resized).jpg

There are 2255 posts in this topic. You are on page 36 of 46.
#1751 3 years ago
Quoted from taylor34:

I listened to the WWOP launch show, it wasn't entirely what I expected. Basically, I thought it would be talking about tournaments like the one at Cactus Jacks, instead it was more of how we're going to nerf that next year, and then that, and then that too. It's not exactly WWOP, it's more of an IFPA upcoming changes broadcast. The latest Tilt Thru is more how I thought this was going to be. I'm not exactly the target audience though, since I don't participate in tourneys anymore, but from my standpoint I'd much rather listen to interviews with participants (especially not the top players) in the tourneys than how we're going to nerf this and that, it's a little like trying to listen to an NCAA rules committee meeting.

It was only Episode 1

To be fair, the subjects we talked about happen to tie into the latest blog posts from each site.

IFPA --> We just announced the v5.3 changes for next year
Fun With Bonus --> Steve just posted his 4000 word piece on the Modern Super League

This was more about those topics being 'current' at the moment, versus what the show is going to be about every episode.

We actually had more fun to come for Episode 1 but didn't touch a good 60% of the stuff we had on the agenda. While there will be WPPR-talk, droning on about our WPPR rules isn't something even I'm interested in doing every episode

#1752 3 years ago

Dude. Josh. Slow. Your. Roll. You are here to DRONE ON ABOUT WPPR rules. Don't forget it. Zach has Skype too.

#1753 3 years ago
Quoted from C2CPinball:

Dude. Josh. Slow. Your. Roll. You are here to DRONE ON ABOUT WPPR rules. Don't forget it. Zach has Skype too.

Damn! I better get cookin' on WPPR v5.4 stat!

#1754 3 years ago

Dang
Behind again already.

#1755 3 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

droning on about our WPPR rules isn't something even I'm interested in doing

Awesome.
I love playing in tourneys and even hosting them. But rule talk bores the hell out of me.

#1756 3 years ago

Enjoyed the episode. Pinball podcasts have pretty full coverage with the many aspects this hobby offers. I like the variety. July (or probably August) episode going to be clips of everyone livecasting from Pinburgh?

#1757 3 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

Custom Rankings --> This allows a community to create EXACTLY what they want. For example, Hilton created the Madison Wisconsin Rankings, which is solely based on tournaments within Madison, WI. We've seen many communities create their own custom rankings catering to exactly what their local player base is interested in.

and this is fricking awesome!!!

With distinct communities within the state and a growing populus in the state that enjoys competitive pinball, the creation of the MadCity Championships with a capstone event held at the end of the year is a fun way to help increase the fun/competition with the local crew of guys that play.

I LOVE the SCS and what it has done for competitive pinball. (I still would like to see the top dogs form other states stay at home for the SCS championship and for the past 2 years that has been the case; I also think their is a dis-incentive for running large events when you want to promote in state SCS players but that is another discussion). I think the majority of WI guys no longer care about overall IFPA rank and the focus is mainly on SCS qualifying and rank throughout the year and that has made it fun and helped to build the comradarie.

I will say that there are lots of things that change with IFPA WPPR versions which tend to have negatives for a regional growing community and are done largely to protect the top 100 rankings, but us guys that continue to focus on the regional increase in the sport find ways to work around them. It is also understandable that measure need to be taken to combat the super league folks in NYC that were invalidating much of the overall outline of IFPA points.

-24
#1758 3 years ago

Nice move. End your (over-rated imo) highly successful podcast, to start a podcast 10 people will care about. Can you not come up with an original name for a show? PASS..

#1759 3 years ago
Quoted from Msch:

Nice move. End your (over-rated imo) highly successful podcast, to start a podcast 10 people will care about. Can you not come up with an original name for a show? PASS..

You sound like a cheerful guy.

#1760 3 years ago

That nameless poster (Msch) has had it out for me for a long time. Uninformed, unhappy and unwelcome... But just my commentary.

#1761 3 years ago

I'm not sure I understand the vitriol.. it seems very easy to avoid a podcast. You know.. just don't download it. If you do somehow manage to download something you despise, just don't spend 45m listening to it.

#1762 3 years ago
Quoted from stoptap:

As somebody who no longer plays competitive pinball, I quite enjoy hearing about competitions. One thing that can become a bit tiresome though is hearing about a lot of talk about the format and not the actual play.

Well, I for one don't mind the rule talk. It's interesting to see what the thinking is behind the rules and some of the intended (or otherwise) consequences of minor rule tweaks. It's also good to see them reacting quickly to the rapidly evolving competitive pinball scene with these rule changes. It's all pretty "inside pinball", but that's okay once in awhile.

Josh, however, needs to accept that the "Nationals" should be the "North Americans". It's pretty obvious by now that Canadians will likely dominate the competitive pinball scene for years to come...

#1763 3 years ago
Quoted from Deaconblooze:

I'm not sure I understand the vitriol.. it seems very easy to avoid a podcast. You know.. just don't download it. If you do somehow manage to download something you despise, just don't spend 45m listening to it.

You would think that, but look at how many people were upset by kaneda's podcast.?

#1764 3 years ago
Quoted from Fytr:

Josh, however, needs to accept that the "Nationals" should be the "North Americans". It's pretty obvious by now that Canadians will likely dominate the competitive pinball scene for years to come...

The strategy of telling the Canadian guys - "I'll rename it if and when a Canadian wins it" . . .took all of ONE YEAR to blow up in my face

#1765 3 years ago
Quoted from C2CPinball:

That nameless poster (Msch) has had it out for me for a long time. Uninformed, unhappy and unwelcome... But just my commentary.

Did you sell him a guitar like mine ? You know, one that doesn't work like the guitars that other people have.

#1766 3 years ago
Quoted from Msch:

Nice move. End your (under-rated imo) highly successful podcast, to start a podcast 10,000 people will care about. You're great at naming your shows! IN.

Fixed that for ya

#1767 3 years ago

Glad to see you back Nate. I really enjoy C2C in its standard setup. I felt like the change over time was part of the growth of the show. Not being personal etc here, but you sure hint and tease a lot about things you say shouldn't be mentioned yet. Why not just not mention it?

I'm not sure the WWP is my thing, but I will definitely give it a few episodes. After all, it's summer and pinball podcasts are my listening material when I mow the grass. I have a big yard!

+1 on Frank F... I mean Msch.

Chris

#1768 3 years ago
Quoted from Nevus:

Glad to see you back Nate. I really enjoy C2C in its standard setup. I felt like the change over time was part of the growth of the show. Not being personal etc here, but you sure hint and tease a lot about things you say shouldn't be mentioned yet. Why not just not mention it?
I'm not sure the WWP is my thing, but I will definitely give it a few episodes. After all, it's summer and pinball podcasts are my listening material when I mow the grass. I have a big yard!
+1 on Frank F... I mean Msch.
Chris

I'm in agreement. Even on the big yard too! I miss the original C2C but, as Nate's always said, it's his show. He can do what he wants with it. It's been obvious for more than a year that he's really gotten into the competition scene. And more power to him. Even though it's not always as apparent, Stern has been a big supporter of competitive pinball too. It only makes sense for him to promote it in the best way possible for him. Good luck, Nate!

One other thing, Nate. A little while ago you mentioned some podcasts that YOU listen to. One of the those was a video game one called the Giant Beastcast. THANK YOU SOOOOO much for mentioning this! My all time favorite video game podcast, Epic Battle Cry, died about two years ago and I've been looking for something with that same sense of camraderie that exists between the hosts which makes a podcast so interesting, not to mention, hilarious. Even though it's a video game podcast these guys go off on tangents about real life stuff all the time. Even my wife, who has no interest in pinball or video games for that matter, can listen to them. Thanks again, Nate!

#1769 3 years ago
Quoted from 27dnast:

I'm not trying to take a pot-shot at Josh. I'm sure he's a super good dude and has the best of intentions. He's sacrificing a lot of personal time to run a volunteer league that's massive. Just commenting on what I hear. Maybe I'm hearing it wrong, but it certainly sends a weirdly mixed message to my ears. Perhaps a message that has a messenger that's a little too close to the action to see the bigger picture?

Well you need experience to have a better shot at making a functional system.. so the fact it is an 'insider' job shouldn't matter much. They have also been VERY open to feedback and refinements.. so I don't think there is much merit to the concern of insiders.

WPRR was always done with the idea of ENCOURAGING play.. and I think its clear its been very successful at that. It's effectiveness as a RATING system as it comes to player vs player skill is not quite as clear, and those who were around at the time know that there was another system pushed by PAPA and bowen called PARS - which strived to be a ranking system only.. much like one has in Chess, Tennis, etc. The 'accuracy' of the ratings has always taken a backseat for WPRR and there are inherent issues that will never be fully addressed. Much of the tweaks have been around balancing, closing attempts to game the system, and generally keep encouraging MORE EVENTS.

The rest of the comments seem to be about the SCS - which is just one event.. it's not the WPRR system as a whole.

The friction always stems from the scenario when people look at WPRRs as a true skill rating system... it's not that and won't ever be in its current form. Nor does it really pretend to be. Think of it as a ranking of performance on the pinball events circuit... that's really what it is. You won't get to the top without competing... but not being in the list doesn't mean you aren't as good as some of those people.

#1770 3 years ago
Quoted from dtown:

One other thing, Nate. A little while ago you mentioned some podcasts that YOU listen to. One of the those was a video game one called the Giant Beastcast. THANK YOU SOOOOO much for mentioning this!

I really dig the Beastcast after Nate put us onto it, along with The 404 Show. Both feature Jeff Bakalar, who seems to like pinball to the extent he even has a pinball tattoo! I almost wonder if he and Nate are friends, and if Nate's future endeavors might include the two of them in some way...

#1771 3 years ago
Quoted from flynnibus:

The 'accuracy' of the ratings has always taken a backseat for WPRR and there are inherent issues that will never be fully addressed. Much of the tweaks have been around balancing, closing attempts to game the system, and generally keep encouraging MORE EVENTS.

The accuracy is just as important to us as the promotional aspect of what WPPR is all about. Many of the changes over the last few years have been far more about improving the accuracy of points earned at these events based on the quality of those events, while not worrying about what that may do to discourage players to participate.

I've extremely pleased with how the rankings look, especially in that top 100-200 range, and would welcome anyone that thinks they have an idea for a more accurate system. I have a .csv file with 11,542 event results that I can send to anyone interested

#1772 3 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

The accuracy is just as important to us as the promotional aspect of what WPPR is all about. Many of the changes over the last few years have been far more about improving the accuracy of points earned at these events based on the quality of those events, while not worrying about what that may do to discourage players to participate.
I've extremely pleased with how the rankings look, especially in that top 100-200 range, and would welcome anyone that thinks they have an idea for a more accurate system. I have a .csv file with 11,542 event results that I can send to anyone interested

Thanks, can you print them out and send them to me?

#1773 3 years ago
Quoted from TaylorVA:

Thanks, can you print them out and send them to me?

This may so be worth it randomly showing up at your door . . . April 1st is only so far away

#1774 3 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

This may so be worth it randomly showing up at your door . . . April 1st is only so far away

Or maybe Taylor would like one page per email?

#1775 3 years ago
Quoted from policano:

Or maybe Taylor would like one page per email?

Josh knows my computing skills are very limited

#1776 3 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

The accuracy is just as important to us as the promotional aspect of what WPPR is all about. Many of the changes over the last few years have been far more about improving the accuracy of points earned at these events based on the quality of those events, while not worrying about what that may do to discourage players to participate.
I've extremely pleased with how the rankings look, especially in that top 100-200 range, and would welcome anyone that thinks they have an idea for a more accurate system. I have a .csv file with 11,542 event results that I can send to anyone interested

Here is where I disagree with your statement... the system is about ranking accumulating performances, not necessarily rating players as players. It will always punish a player who doesn't compete as much as other people of similar skill (because it's an **accumulation** of performances - not a grading).

Keeping out the fluff, and making the points carry more 'quality' are certainly changes you have made over the years.. and I'm sure it feels like whack a mole sometimes But the model of accumulating points to establish rankings is always going to hinge on participation. And that was the poster's complaint. This isn't like some sports where points are used, but everyone competes the same events.

That's why I said "Think of it as a ranking of performance on the pinball events circuit"

That will correlate well with an actual ranking of players... if the players all participate a reasonable level relative to each other.

#1777 3 years ago
Quoted from flynnibus:

That will correlate well with an actual ranking of players... if the players all participate a reasonable level relative to each other.

Certainly as you move down the list you run into players that haven't even played the minimum amount of events to fill out their 20-event resume, but I think when looking at the top you are getting a good ranking for exactly the reason you mention . . . these top players do participate within a reasonable level relative to each other (similar to the OWGR for golf, which is a system that has heavily influenced the design of the WPPR system). YMMV

#1778 3 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

Certainly as you move down the list you run into players that haven't even played the minimum amount of events to fill out their 20-event resume, but I think when looking at the top you are getting a good ranking for exactly the reason you mention . . . these top players do participate within a reasonable level relative to each other (similar to the OWGR for golf, which is a system that has heavily influenced the design of the WPPR system). YMMV

OWGR WPPR YMMV WWOP ZOMG

#1779 3 years ago
Quoted from Shaneus:

I really dig the Beastcast after Nate put us onto it, along with The 404 Show. Both feature Jeff Bakalar, who seems to like pinball to the extent he even has a pinball tattoo! I almost wonder if he and Nate are friends, and if Nate's future endeavors might include the two of them in some way...

Jeff Bakalar has mentioned a few times on the Beastcast his love of pinball. I think he even did some video coverage for GoT back at CES. The Giant Bombcast is another great video game podcast from the same site (Beastcast is a spinoff).

#1780 3 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

I've extremely pleased with how the rankings look, especially in that top 100-200 range

Below are 5 competitions ran in the UK, with their points awarded at time of comp, as well as what they're worth now.

The only comp where the format has changed is the Xmas Cracker, all of the others are virtually, if not exactly, the same each year. Until the old V4 tournaments depreciate to 0 (or they are all recalibrated using V5 - way too big a task) the current standings are not a true reflection of the CURRENT skill levels.

How can it be that a person winning the same comp 3/4 years ago is still getting 2 or 3 times the points that the winner of the comp a month ago is getting?

V5_vs_V4_(resized).PNG

#1781 3 years ago
Quoted from WJxxxx:

Below are 5 competitions ran in the UK, with their points awarded at time of comp, as well as what they're worth now.
The only comp where the format has changed is the Xmas Cracker, all of the others are virtually, if not exactly, the same each year. Until the old V4 tournaments depreciate to 0 (or they are all recalibrated using V5 - way too big a task) the current standings are not a true reflection of the CURRENT skill levels.
How can it be that a person winning the same comp 3/4 years ago is still getting 2 or 3 times the points that the winner of the comp a month ago is getting?

I'll assume you're Wayne?

Like you mentioned, unfortunately there's not much we can do while the transition of WPPR 4.0 to 5.0 is still happening. Ultimately with a player's resume being made up of your best 20 events, I feel it gives ample opportunity for players to prove their skill level over the course of that sample size.

Looking at the people ranked above you in the UK, let's go ahead and pretend we started fresh in 2015, so a player's entire resume would be based on v5.0 activity.

Martin Ayub - 397.45
Craig Pullen - 255.44
Greg Mott - 253.87
Peter Blakemore - 241.48
David Mainwaring - 260.76
-----------------------------
Wayne Johns - 94.72

The ultimate impact on those 2014 events are minimal with respect to the WPPR rank of those players, and IMO it is the CURRENT activity of those players that are the most integral in determining where they stand today.

Now you've only played 25 events since 2015, while the other guys listed above you have played more than that, but for that kind of "under-ranked" situation I blame the player on their lack of participation, not the system.

#1782 3 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

Martin Ayub - 397.45
Craig Pullen - 255.44
Greg Mott - 253.87
Peter Blakemore - 241.48
David Mainwaring - 260.76
-----------------------------
Wayne Johns - 94.72

I wanted to dig in deeper here because thinking about it, it's not really fair counting the top 20 events over only an 18 month period, so figured it was worth looking at the top 10 resume for each player since 2015 to see if it looks any different.

Martin Ayub - 265.11
Craig Pullen - 183.46
Greg Mott - 197.50
Peter Blakemore - 183.93
David Mainwaring - 191.98
-----------------------------
Wayne Johns - 81.40

Looks like a similar situation to me . . .

#1783 3 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

I'll assume you're Wayne?

Yes I am Wayne, but what has that got to do with anything I stated?

Nowhere in my post did I complain about my ranking position or any other, just that the numbers speak for themselves. As it happens I have won 2 comps in V5 and 1 in V4 (of those listed). I am getting more points for the V4 win than I am for both of the V5 wins combined - how is that in anyway fair and correct to anyone?

As you brought up my ranking (for whatever reason) I would suggest (I know, having checked myself) that the majority of those people you have listed above me have gained their points in major competitions abroad. I can see 2 names you have listed who have not finished above me in any of the competitions we have competed in over the last year and a half, yet their ranking is significantly higher because they can afford (both the time and money) to compete abroad. Thus opening another argument of 'buying' your points.

If you look at the UKCS results they show a different picture, as it happens, I have actually WON the last 7 competitions I have entered in the UK. Unfortunately, 6 of those have been across 2 different leagues (playing against over 60 different players), which now don't qualify for points as they do not include head to head play. So I would state again, that the current ranking is not a true reflection.

Quoted from ifpapinball:

I blame the player on their lack of participation

Really? I attend EVERY major show, donate machines for the public to play at EVERY show, organise and run 5 (6 if you count the junior league, with trophies funded out of my own pocket) different competitions each year to try and encourage more people to play.
So to say that it is lack of participation is a complete joke, you blatantly have no understanding of the pinball scene in the UK.

#1784 3 years ago

Touchy!

#1785 3 years ago
Quoted from WJxxxx:

As you brought up my ranking (for whatever reason) I would suggest (I know, having checked myself) that the majority of those people you have listed above me have gained their points in major competitions abroad. I can see 2 names you have listed who have not finished above me in any of the competitions we have competed in over the last year and a half, yet their ranking is significantly higher because they can afford (both the time and money) to compete abroad. Thus opening another argument of 'buying' your points.

With every ranking system in the world, this problem eventually surfaces. To be ranked amongst the best on the world, at some point you have to play in 'bigger' global competitions. Those players are ranked above you not only because they can afford to compete abroad, but also that they actually performed at these events abroad.

Quoted from WJxxxx:

If you look at the UKCS results they show a different picture, as it happens, I have actually WON the last 7 competitions I have entered in the UK. Unfortunately, 6 of those have been across 2 different leagues (playing against over 60 different players), which now don't qualify for points as they do not include head to head play. So I would state again, that the current ranking is not a true reflection.

I dare say comments from someone that thinks they are under-ranked?

I get it . . . this happens within all the time within local pockets of players that don't venture out to bigger events.

I think the UKCS results are great, and you guys are able to cater things that work much better for your competitive landscape. You seem however to want to disregard the performance that the other players in the UK have had outside of the UK and the impact that has on their WORLD ranking.

How would you value a victory at those 6 UK competitions compared to the 98th place finish you had at the 2015 EPC or 41st place at the London Pinball Championships? You can dismiss these poor performances and focus on the wins you had, and that's okay, but the opportunity cost of those points not earned at the bigger events you attended is quite substantial (with respect to your WORLD ranking compared to the other UK players that played in those same big events you played in).

Quoted from WJxxxx:

Really? I attend EVERY major show, donate machines for the public to play at EVERY show, organise and run 5 (6 if you count the junior league, with trophies funded out of my own pocket) different competitions each year to try and encourage more people to play.
So to say that it is lack of participation is a complete joke, you blatantly have no understanding of the pinball scene in the UK.

Lack of participation wasn't meant as any sort of jab about your helping of the community. I think it's awesome you do so much to help the UK scene. I definitely don't have much an understanding of the pinball scene in the UK, so I leave it to Martin to keep me updated on when the UK will succeed from the IFPA Union

My lack of participation comment was based simply on the way the WPPR rules work. Think of the WPPR rules as any random rules for a "tournament". If the tournament is taking the top 5 scores to advance to the playoffs, a player can show up, play one game, absolutely destroy it, and somehow finish in 78th place out of 90 players because they didn't play the other 4 machines.

That player can make the argument that "I beat EVERYONE at this entire tournament for that game, this is bulls*it that you're ranking me 78th out of 90. My finishing position is clearly not an appropriate showing of my skill."

The WPPR system is no different in that regard. 20 events count, and bigger events at the international and national level are worth more compared to local events and leagues. The players that play those bigger events are at a huge advantage just based on how our 'tournament rules' are laid out.

Ultimately if the UKCS works better for you, then that's great that the IFPA is still able to provide some motivation for you to participate in tournaments. It sounds like the IFPA Ratings system might be more up your alley as well, with each performance having an impact (positive and negative) on where your skill rating lies.

Honestly, if your skill level is at the level of the other top UK guys, at some point you'll prove that on a bigger stage, and your world ranking will reflect that. I've seen this similar path of 'local awesome player' taking those next steps to bigger events and seeing the WPPR rank be more reflective of that actual skill level quite often.

#1786 3 years ago

This is clearly going nowhere, my original post was purely pointing out that, realistically, until V4 points have depreciated the rankings are not consistent for current results. There was no criticism directed at anyone - just a statement of fact based on cold hard figures.

The way I see it there are many different faults with ANY ranking system, unless ALL players compete against each other, in the SAME events, at the SAME time, on a regular basis.
There certainly isn't a perfect system which fits all.
What we've got with the IFPA is an opinion, based on certain criteria. I am not offering any solutions it's your baby (although I have my own opinions if you want to pm me), but some of the issues which create friction include:

Different points awarded for different styles of competitions. Who's to say which format of competition is a better judge of players skill/ability on the day? A straight knockout competition, a league format, or a combination of both?
To use a UK Football sporting analogy: is the winner of the FA cup better than the winner of the Premier League, or the English team which wins the Champions League? If you asked any number of people, the majority would say that the winner of the Premier League is the better team over the season.

Different points awarded for tournaments based on who attends. You can only beat the players in front of you. Why should any winner be penalised if the worlds no.1 (or any of the other top 64) isn't in attendance?
To use Golf as an example: Should Jordan Spieth get less ranking points for winning the US Open if Rory McIlroy chooses not to compete? He had the opportunity to compete - it's an open competition, it's his fault that he chose not to, thus inhibiting Spieth's chance at winning more ranking points?

Points awarded based on number of games played:
The FIFA World Cup is won by a team which plays just 7 games, yet they are usually acknowledged as being worthy of winning the competition. It doesn't need 25 games to decide it. If you argue that there are qualifying games played which count towards the total games played. 80/90% of the teams who qualify, qualify for every competition anyway. These are completely superfluous games in deciding the eventual winner. The exact same for a lot of extended pinball comps, superfluous games designed just to get max points, which end up knocking out (and thus qualifying) the same players each time.

Abusing the system:
Just looking at some of the "Super Leagues" set up since the change. it is clear these are set up purely to maximise points and move people up the rankings (often the organiser). Basing the entire comp worth on the number of players entered (regardless of how many games they play) and then the number of games the winner plays isn't logical either. There are numerous examples of players playing just a single game in an entire league season, but they bring the same 'worth' as a player who plays every single meeting/game.

#1787 3 years ago

Would love to hear some solutions. PM me or share publicly. I find the dialogue only leads to making a better system.

#1788 3 years ago
Quoted from ifpapinball:

Would love to hear some solutions.

Not solutions - if I could come up with a solution which would please and fit everyone I'd put my skills to better use, like solving the Middle East problems - just different ways of trying to achieve the same goal.

IFPA come up with a standard set of tournament formats and rank these accordingly, based PURELY on format.

There could be any number of different formats, but to qualify for WPPR points your tournament MUST be taken from one of the approved formats. if you want to run a tournament with a different format it can be submitted to IFPA for consideration to be added to the 'approved format' for the following year.

Pros
Everyone would know what a tournament would be worth before entering and choose whether to enter or not.
It would stop tournaments being made overly long, just to gain max points in current system.
Tournaments across the world would be easier to understand the format.
Tournament Organisers would simply be able to go on to the IFPA website (or other source) and get the pre-approved format that suits them best, along with scoring sheets to download, software to display tournament details etc.
Tournament formats can be set for different skill levels / time constraints / machine availability etc. (obviously these will earn different WPPR points)

Cons
It could stop different formats being trialled
Decisions will have to be made as to the rankings of various formats against each other (but that already happens).

Rather than basing the number of games a tournament consists of by the number of games the winner plays, make it the average number of games played by everyone entering.

Pros
Deters weighting the back end of tournaments with superfluous games
Allows the lesser plays to play more games and thus feel more encouraged/involved.
Cons
I really can't think of any

Don't count the players best 20 (or whatever number) games, just the last 20 games. Still include depreciation so a recent win, will be worth more than a win 3 years ago.

Pros
Will benefit/reward those skilful players who can't attend as many comps. Whatever the reason.
Cons
The potential to deter people entering new comps if they've had a good result in the past for fear of losing that good win. (this doesn't really stack up, as the majority of the higher level players enter comps, not just for the points, or the prizes, but because they actually enjoy it)

Currently it's an equivalent of playing a game of darts where one player has 3 darts the other has 6 but only counts his best 3. Yes, the player with 6 still has to perform well, but they have a safety net for half their darts. (PS I actually played a number of games of darts against a World Champion - John Lowe - a number of years ago and did manage to beat him. Although only once out of 4 attempts)

Do away with tournaments gaining points based on who enters. It is the opposite of a vicious circle.

#1789 3 years ago
Quoted from WJxxxx:

my original post was purely pointing out that, realistically, until V4 points have depreciated the rankings are not consistent for current results. There was no criticism directed at anyone - just a statement of fact based on cold hard figures.

I struggled with the shift from V4 to V5, too. But ultimately, after understanding the system better, I came to appreciate the improved ranking accuracy it provided.

There are definitely shifts that continue to take place as V4 points depreciate, particularly for those tourneys/events that were relatively over-valued in V4 vs what they're worth now in V5. But it's not a "statement of fact" that current results (V5 onward) aren't consistent with the cumulative rankings that include both V4 and V5: the cold hard figures Josh provided of the subset of top-5 UK under V5 show just the opposite -- the ranking order is identical.

Quoted from WJxxxx:

The way I see it there are many different faults with ANY ranking system, unless ALL players compete against each other, in the SAME events, at the SAME time, on a regular basis.

With 40,000+ players, spread around the world, this is impractical and not feasible. Note that the competitions that do bring together the largest # of players are worth more than smaller ones, which encourages MORE players to compete in the same event at the same time.

Quoted from WJxxxx:

I am not offering any solutions it's your baby

While Josh is the President of the IFPA and most vocal mouthpiece for the IFPA, the system is not just HIS baby. I didn't realize this either until I was informed that the rules, points system, competition formats, etc get reviewed, discussed, and ratified by a worldwide committee of pinball players and tournament organizers.

Quoted from WJxxxx:

Different points awarded for different styles of competitions. Who's to say which format of competition is a better judge of players skill/ability on the day? A straight knockout competition, a league format, or a combination of both?

I believe this is exactly why the IFPA does NOT dictate that only certain formats are acceptable and earn their relative value on equal footing: a 2-player knockout game and a 2-player Swiss-style game both earn 1 TGP. Same for 4-player games: both formats earn 2 TGP per game. The key elements are that players compete directly against each other at some point in the competition, and competitions have more value with greater # of players, greater # of games played to determine a winner, and higher Rank & Rating players participating.

Quoted from WJxxxx:

Different points awarded for tournaments based on who attends. You can only beat the players in front of you. Why should any winner be penalised if the worlds no.1 (or any of the other top 64) isn't in attendance?
To use Golf as an example: Should Jordan Spieth get less ranking points for winning the US Open if Rory McIlroy chooses not to compete? He had the opportunity to compete - it's an open competition, it's his fault that he chose not to, thus inhibiting Spieth's chance at winning more ranking points?

Actually, the OWGR system does just that: an event's worth is based on the quality of the top-ranked players that participated. http://www.owgr.com/about
If Spieth wins a 4-player event that includes Josh, you, and me, I would certainly hope that he would earn a lot less ranking points for his victory than if he'd won a 4-player event that included McIlroy, Day, and Watson.

Quoted from WJxxxx:

Points awarded based on number of games played:
The FIFA World Cup is won by a team which plays just 7 games, yet they are usually acknowledged as being worthy of winning the competition. It doesn't need 25 games to decide it. If you argue that there are qualifying games played which count towards the total games played. 80/90% of the teams who qualify, qualify for every competition anyway. These are completely superfluous games in deciding the eventual winner. The exact same for a lot of extended pinball comps, superfluous games designed just to get max points, which end up knocking out (and thus qualifying) the same players each time.

Comparing one soccer match to one game of pinball is a bit of a stretch -- both in terms of time duration, and recovery time between matches. I don't think that the FIFA players, their families, the organizers, host cities, nor the fans would be able to handle 25 games.

It doesn't take much to only have 7 games of pinball though. And the IFPA committee determined that 25 games would be the threshold for giving full value. I trust that a significant amount of analysis and discussion went into determining this # and it wasn't some arbitrary # picked to encourage superfluous games. But if there's data analysis to show that 7-game events determine the same winner as 25-game events, then I'm guessing he'd be more than willing to hear the argument.

The other extreme of this that took place in prior IFPA system versions (and needed correction) was the single-game high score competition, which awarded 25 WPPR points for one person being able to have one great game. And awarding 25 points to someone who won a multi-day, 10-round-robin qualifying, 3-stage final competition.

Quoted from WJxxxx:

Abusing the system:
Just looking at some of the "Super Leagues" set up since the change. it is clear these are set up purely to maximise points and move people up the rankings (often the organiser). Basing the entire comp worth on the number of players entered (regardless of how many games they play) and then the number of games the winner plays isn't logical either. There are numerous examples of players playing just a single game in an entire league season, but they bring the same 'worth' as a player who plays every single meeting/game.

Great point! See Version 5.3

#1790 3 years ago

Thanks for the input Snailman.

My original post was purely pointing out that the winner of a competition in V5 now earns less points than the winner of the same competition 3 years ago in V4. There is no debate about that - that IS fact. I said absolutely nothing about how it effects the overall rankings - Josh brought that up.

Although you say the IFPA does not dictate tournament formats. It is my understanding that leagues which do not include any head to head play are not eligible for points. Realistically, in a league you ARE playing against everyone competing, just not at the same time. You are all playing the same machine. The way that points are added to the tournament based on the number of 4 player games, 2 player games etc. is effectively forming how a competition must be ran if you want it worth max points.

The winner (or more realistically) those people who get to the back end of competitions is usually the same, no matter whether the tournament is 7 games, 25 games or 100 games long. There are very few formats which allow a complete underdog to win, yet they are worth vastly different points.

I think my analogy of the World Cup is spot on, it's the principle that matters in determining the best team, not the logistics of recovery or fans interest.

I agree 100% regarding the old system with side, or high score, tournaments being worth the same base as a 'standard length' tournament a complete farce (which I did benefit from, and will continue to do so for the next 2 years).

#1791 3 years ago
Quoted from WJxxxx:

I think my analogy of the World Cup is spot on, it's the principle that matters in determining the best team, not the logistics of recovery or fans interest.

I don't agree with the World Cup analogy at all. Yes its only 7 games, but each game is 90 minutes. And its at least 90 minutes no matter what. Pinball is incredibly different from that. Yes you always get 3 balls, but 2 of those 3 may be house balls. In soccer you can't just randomly lose 30 or 60 minutes worth of chances.

The reason more games is needed in pinball is the luck factor. I will always put more weight into a format that requires more games. That's what the IFPA believes as well. That's not saying saying a 7 game match can't determine the best player, but over time the probability of the best players succeeding would be lower than if it were 25 games. Guaranteed.

#1792 3 years ago

I posted this on the forum in response to Wayne regarding the soccer analogy ... I still have the same thoughts on it:

I can appreciate the analogy to soccer . . . let me tell you where our comparisons differ, and some of the challenges we have to deal with that soccer doesn't. (Sorry I'm American so you'll have to bear with SOCCER being written a bunch)

You compare a game of soccer to a game of pinball.
You compare a league season worth of games played to what determines the 'best team' (i.e. ranking).

Here's my comparison:

I compared a game of soccer played to a tournament/event played.
I then compare a season worth of soccer league play to determine who is the 'best team', to the resume of events that a player has making up their WPPR ranking (their best 20).

Here's the biggest reason why . . . in soccer you're able to assume one constant, and that's the fact that a soccer game is 90 minutes, between 2 teams, every time a game is played. There's no need to measure the 'volatility' or the strength of what that game played means with respect to the teams playing it.

Now, take those two teams you mentioned, and instead of playing a 90 minute game to determine the 'result', what if you did the following alternatives:

- See which team could kick the ball the furthest given 10 kicks from the goal line
- Instead of playing a full 90 minute game, just go directly to a Golden Goal format where first team to score wins
- Have the game consist entirely of penalty kicks
- Instead of playing 11 men per side (is that right? lol), each team puts ONE MAN on the field for those 90 minutes.
- Allow teams the opportunity to have 3 players per side the ability to touch the ball with their hands instead of just the goalie.

Instead of us trying to keep the 'game played' a constant, our rankings system tries to incorporate all of these various formats into acceptable ways to judge the skillful play of competitive pinball players.

The biggest reason is that if all pinball tournaments were '90 minute games between two players', that would do far more to hurt the promotion of getting people to create and organize events, and to get players to participate in them. Part of the lure of competitive pinball is that we're able to offer a ton of flexibility to organizers of what they can run, which other sports don't have the luxury of doing (or can't because of the challenges they would face comparing teams to one another based on variable game rules/conditions).

Soooo . . . we're left with trying to take this constant that other sports have - ONE GAME PLAYED. In Soccer it's 90 minutes. In American football it's 60 minutes. There's enough time in the game for the more skillful team to have the advantage at coming out victorious. Yes there's a level of volatility in that game played, but it's less volatile compared to running that same game for a shorter amount of time, or pick one of the formats I randomly listed above and then try debating which formats are more/less volatile (that was always the challenge we had getting WPPR v5.0 launched - we had to try and find a unit of measurement from that random list of formats above as the unit used to judge that level of volatility in a given result.

Our "90 minute game" played of soccer is now defined by being equivalent in the pinball world to "25 meaningful games played". In soccer that 90 minute game is worth 100% value for the team that wins the match. No value is given to anything less than that, because professional soccer doesn't accept any of the random formats I listed above. In pinball, 25 meaningful games played are worth 100% value for the player that wins the tournament. Instead of saying no value is given for anything less, we work out a percentage basis as to the value of that 'win' being based on how close to a 'full game' worth of games did they play.

Organizers are welcome to run events anywhere along the spectrum. Most of the time decisions are made based on the interest of the player base participating. Most of the time the decisions for a format are based on the time available to play (i.e. you can't play a 90 minute game of soccer if you only have 30 minutes to run your tournament). What we've tried to do is put the opportunities out there for organizers to meet that "90 minute soccer game" equivalent, and it's up to the organizer and players if they want to follow that checklist to ensure it happens. People may not agree with that checklist, but we think it's as fair of a list that we can have at this moment in time.

Hopefully our slight differences in the analogy you mentioned gives you a little more perspective where I'm coming from with all these attempts to manage the continued growing popularity of people wanting to start tournaments (that range from the smallest quickest most casual events, to the largest most prestigious events around the world).

Now for someone like yourself that stated our current system is "in shambles", I don't expect you to agree with any of my points . . . but simply to try and respect the thought process that has gone through that has taken us to where we are today.

-2
#1793 3 years ago

So if a format is set that the best player there always wins, what's the point of having a competition? The result is already predetermined.

That's the joy of any sport, the variability. Whether that be a house ball or a lucky ricochet, or refereeing decision or deflection.
There are games where luck plays more of a part than other games, and before anyone says anything it's not just EMs. I've actually studied every single game played in the UK league played over 4 years and determined which games are more likely to reward the more skilful players.

I can come up with a format where a 7 game comp gives more accurate results than a 25 game one, and have seen them implemented because the organiser is purely trying to extend the comp.
Its quality not length that counts? "Guarenteed"

#1794 3 years ago
Quoted from WJxxxx:

So if a format is set that the best player there always wins, what's the point of having a competition? The result is already predetermined.

The best player doesn't always win. That's why you play the game.

You play to win the game! Let me let Herm Edwards explain it to you. lol

#1795 3 years ago

I was using Football World Cup, can't bring myself to refer to it as the S word, as a base for a tournament format.

8 groups of 4 teams/people where each plays each other once
Top 2 go through from each group - seeded
Then the 16 is reduced to 8, then 4 then 2 finally producing a winner after 7 games.

Everything is constant throughout the tournament , in that, each game is 90mins, or a head to head between 2 players. No 30 minutes games or anything like that.

That is a format for a competition with 32 people which can easily be finished in an afternoon with just 8 machines available.

That is the exact format which is used in one of the comps in the UK. Which earns a massive 4.76 points for the winner in V5, the exact same value as finishing 176th in the EPC last year.

#1796 3 years ago
Quoted from WJxxxx:

I was using Football World Cup, can't bring myself to refer to it as the S word, as a base for a tournament format.
8 groups of 4 teams/people where each plays each other once
Top 2 go through from each group - seeded
Then the 16 is reduced to 8, then 4 then 2 finally producing a winner after 7 games.
Everything is constant throughout the tournament , in that, each game is 90mins, or a head to head between 2 players. No 30 minutes games or anything like that.
That is a format for a competition with 32 people which can easily be finished in an afternoon with just 8 machines available.
That is the exact format which is used in one of the comps in the UK. Which earns a massive 4.76 points for the winner in V5, the exact same value as finishing 176th in the EPC last year.

So you start with 32 people and play head to head until 1 remains if I am understanding correctly?

#1797 3 years ago
Quoted from TomGWI:

The best player doesn't always win. That's why you play the game.
You play to win the game! Let me let Herm Edwards explain it to you. lol
» YouTube video

It would seem that awarding more points to the winner would solve many of these issues. Bigger drop off in points from 1st to 2nd and the other finishers would place a bigger emphasis on winning. Doesn't make much sense that 2nd should receive only a few points less then the winner. After all 2nd place is just 1st loser!

#1798 3 years ago
Quoted from WJxxxx:

Thanks for the input Snailman.
My original post was purely pointing out that the winner of a competition in V5 now earns less points than the winner of the same competition 3 years ago in V4. There is no debate about that - that IS fact. I said absolutely nothing about how it effects the overall rankings - Josh brought that up.

But that is only a temporal problem... and lesser of evils vs rebooting and starting over. Is it really fair to huff and puff over that point for something that will resolve itself and never come back?

#1799 3 years ago

We were definitely stuck between many awful decisions on v5.0 implementation.

A) go back through the ~2500 tournaments each year and grade every one of them under the new system (impossible)

B) wipe everything pre 2015 and start it out as a completely new system as if nothing before that time existed (nobody was a fan of this on the IFPA board)

C) pick some arbitrary bigger decay amount for pre 2015 years (this didn't work because many events are actually worth more under v5.0 with the up to 30% base value increase, plus deciding on those arbitrary numbers would have been an additional challenge to work out)

D) let it ride ... Do nothing, and nature will self correct over the next 3 years (we're halfway through it!)

Knowing that people would be pissed off about every option, option D of 'doing nothing' seemed like the best way to go

#1800 3 years ago

Looks like Josh took over Nates thread just like he did Nates podcast. Just kidding, but seriously, when will we be updated on what he has up his sleeve?!?

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
$ 49.00
Cabinet - Other
Chrome Candy
$ 11.95
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
ULEKstore
From: $ 69.95
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
Super Skill Shot Shop
Wanted
Machine - Wanted
Cortland, NY
There are 2255 posts in this topic. You are on page 36 of 46.

Hey there! Got a moment?

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside