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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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"

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.