(Topic ID: 118147)

New WPPR system is out


By ryanwanger

4 years ago



Topic Stats

  • 242 posts
  • 46 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 4 years ago by desertT1
  • Topic is favorited by 3 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    Topic Gallery

    There have been 2 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

    wppr.jpg
    image.jpg

    There are 242 posts in this topic. You are on page 1 of 5.
    #1 4 years ago

    Time for compliments and complaints!

    (I think example #1 under TGP calculations has a typo. 42% should be 48%).

    #2 4 years ago

    Woo, 5 points for a monthly!

    #3 4 years ago

    I dropped 10 spots. Boooooo!!!!!!!!

    #4 4 years ago

    I scored 0.00 points at every tournament? Hmmmm.

    #5 4 years ago
    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    (I think example #1 under TGP calculations has a typo. 42% should be 48%).

    Good catch . . . I'll fix that shortly

    #6 4 years ago

    do events still degrade to zero after 3 years?

    i.e. I have an event that if from Feb 25th 2012. On Feb 25th 2015, does that event automatically disappear from my point tally?

    #7 4 years ago

    Edited for incorrect info.

    Correct info posted below.

    #8 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    do events still degrade to zero after 3 years?

    i.e. I have an event that if from Feb 25th 2012. On Feb 25th 2015, does that event automatically disappear from my point tally?

    Yes. The original plan of 100/75/50/25/0 and adding that 4th year of decay was scrapped. This was due to the high pain in the ass level of carrying events under the 'old way' and 'new way' at the same time. Expanding that decay to 4 years meant we had to carry those 'old way' results for an extra year.

    We'll revisit the decay once we have 4 years of 'new way' results.

    Funny enough it actually had very little impact on the top 250-300 rankings by keeping that 4th year at 25%.

    #9 4 years ago

    Saw this rule....

    "The changes will NOT be retroactive: the original WPPR point values for events prior to 2015, and the combination of Main/Side tourneys and Periodic tourneys into single line items for World Ranking consideration will remain unchanged."

    Why did you end up changing this rule? All the events prior to 2015 were split...

    #10 4 years ago
    Quoted from harmon1728:

    Saw this rule....
    "The changes will NOT be retroactive: the original WPPR point values for events prior to 2015, and the combination of Main/Side tourneys and Periodic tourneys into single line items for World Ranking consideration will remain unchanged."
    Why did you end up changing this rule? All the events prior to 2015 were split...

    Monthlies (for example) used to be under a single line item. Now, they are each their own line item. It looked more impressive when I had a few points under a single item, now I have many items with sub-1 point awards. Not as impressive.

    Fortunately, a few of those will be knocked off as soon as results from this past weekend go live. I'm also missing an event from mid Jan, but that should get fixed as soon as the guy who ran it sees it's missing from his list. Probably forgot to approve the email button, I've done that too.

    #11 4 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    Monthlies (for example) used to be under a single line item. Now, they are each their own line item. It looked more impressive when I had a few points under a single item, now I have many items with sub-1 point awards. Not as impressive.
    Fortunately, a few of those will be knocked off as soon as results from this past weekend go live. I'm also missing an event from mid Jan, but that should get fixed as soon as the guy who ran it sees it's missing from his list. Probably forgot to approve the email button, I've done that too.

    This was not supposed to happen though. I thought all the old stuff would stay the same and stuff starting on January 1st, 2015 would be different.

    #12 4 years ago

    It was a casualty of how the new system was built. The grouping of results was causing huge issues with not only the data tables, but then displaying of that data (with some results being grouped, and then those same tournament names not being grouped after 1/1/15).

    Rather than spending the next 3 months trying to figure out better ways to make it work, we removed the grouping of anything out of the entire build script, regardless of date.

    It will end up making 2015 results have an impact sooner, since they don't have to be compared to the Main+Classics combo events. For those monthlies, we figured there will soon be plenty of new data to fill in that gap of having split out the past years worth of data into individual entries.

    #13 4 years ago

    I did see I forgot to update that verbiage on the Info page, so I just did:

    The point value changes will NOT be retroactive: the original WPPR point values for events prior to 2015 will remain the same, however Main/Side tourneys and Periodic tourneys will be broken into single line items for World Ranking consideration.

    #14 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Yes. The original plan of 100/75/50/25/0 and adding that 4th year of decay was scrapped. This was due to the high pain in the ass level of carrying events under the 'old way' and 'new way' at the same time. Expanding that decay to 4 years meant we had to carry those 'old way' results for an extra year.
    We'll revisit the decay once we have 4 years of 'new way' results.
    Funny enough it actually had very little impact on the top 250-300 rankings by keeping that 4th year at 25%.

    I propose we all start at zero.

    #15 4 years ago

    One of the issues i had with the new system was that this years events would not count for much as main/classic combos and combined periodics even at 75% and 50% would be better than the new 10 is the new 25 WPPR system. i actually thought this year and next would be less important but with the seperation it makes this years event mean more which going forward is a good thing

    #16 4 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    I propose we all start at zero.

    I just did that last year, I don't wanna do it again.

    I see what you are saying though. But, my state rank is more important to me than my world rank. At some point that will change, but for now I'm heavy in-state with hopes to travel a little this year.

    #17 4 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    I just did that last year, I don't wanna do it again.
    I see what you are saying though. But, my state rank is more important to me than my world rank. At some point that will change, but for now I'm heavy in-state with hopes to travel a little this year.

    I was just joking.

    #18 4 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    I was just joking.

    I know, all in good fun. I'm just happy to see results for 2015 showing up. Hopefully the 2015 SCS pages will go live soon.

    #19 4 years ago

    One question with the new system. If i wanted to run a tournament where the qualifying was unlimited but the qualifying games were not WPPR 5.0 approved for meaningful games. the finals would be 5.0 approved meaningful games. None of the qualifying games would be meaningful games but would the tournament still get 1% point per hour of unlimited qualifying if 50% of people get eliminated in qualifying?

    #20 4 years ago

    Is anyone missing tournaments under the new system? We had a PinGolf tournament in January that hasn't appeared yet. I'm not sure if it's "in process" still.

    #21 4 years ago
    Quoted from Noahs_Arcade:

    I dropped 10 spots. Boooooo!!!!!!!!

    Me too. And that's with already playing in 4 events this year (30+ WPPR Points) and never finishing lower than 3rd. Splitting up the historical events absolutely killed MN players because for years monthly events (that were worth basically nothing to begin with) were all we had. You do well each month and get a combined 12 points for the year for that event...now those 12 points drop to 2. I love it going forward as our monthly tournaments will actually have the value they deserve, but in the short term it sucks.

    #22 4 years ago
    Quoted from fna_royam:

    One question with the new system. If i wanted to run a tournament where the qualifying was unlimited but the qualifying games were not WPPR 5.0 approved for meaningful games. the finals would be 5.0 approved meaningful games. None of the qualifying games would be meaningful games but would the tournament still get 1% point per hour of unlimited qualifying if 50% of people get eliminated in qualifying?

    That's a pretty solid loophole in the verbiage.

    I'm going to go with "You can't accumulate time on games that aren't meaningful".

    We don't want people doing 20 hours of unlimited qualifying, where the non-meaningful game played is "See how long it takes to plunge your ball on Metallica".

    Ultimately we'll still being reviewing calendar submission on a case-by-case basis as to whether it's something the IFPA wants to endorse at all.

    #23 4 years ago
    Quoted from steve1515:

    Is anyone missing tournaments under the new system? We had a PinGolf tournament in January that hasn't appeared yet. I'm not sure if it's "in process" still.

    What was the tournament name?

    I would say if you go into the Results Submission module and you see it 'available' under your drop down list, it means that we probably don't have it.

    #24 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    What was the tournament name?

    I would say if you go into the Results Submission module and you see it 'available' under your drop down list, it means that we probably don't have it.

    I'm not sure on the name but going by past names it would probably be called "Lanes & Games Monthly PinGolf". It would have been on January 23rd. The organizer said that he's submitted last I asked.

    I'm not familiar with the Results Submission module. How do I get to that?

    Thanks!

    #25 4 years ago
    Quoted from steve1515:

    I'm not familiar with the Results Submission module. How do I get to that?

    http://www.ifpapinball.com/tournaments/upload/

    It's where organizers go to submit results. Every calendar submission is tied to an email address, and on the results module when you type in that email address it will list all the tournaments that are system shows 'open' for that address.

    #26 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Every calendar submission is tied to an email address...

    When I put in our organizer's email the event does show up in the tournament selector list. I guess that means the submission didn't go though, correct?

    #28 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    I'm going to go with "You can't accumulate time on games that aren't meaningful".

    We don't want people doing 20 hours of unlimited qualifying, where the non-meaningful game played is "See how long it takes to plunge your ball on Metallica".

    Thanks for the response, that makes sense. I do like running tournaments with a variety of formats - one of them being a slaughter rule where if after ball 2 if one player has double the score of the other player the game ends in a slaughter rule. obviously that is not 5.0 approved but still competitive IMHO. I may still run tournaments where some of the rounds may not be 5.0 approved but i'll make sure to detail that and not have those games count for "meaningful games" for TGP.

    Post edited by fna_royam: spelling

    #29 4 years ago

    Is anyone having trouble with the new "submit new tournament" form? I'm getting an error every time I try.

    #30 4 years ago
    Quoted from alveolus:

    Is anyone having trouble with the new "submit new tournament" form? I'm getting an error every time I try.

    The only error I ever had was trying to submit for an event that only had 2 players show up. Christmas Eve and a typical player count of 5, so not overly shocking. Josh said the system doesn't like 2 players, but we got it figured out.

    #31 4 years ago
    Quoted from harmon1728:

    Saw this rule....
    "The changes will NOT be retroactive: the original WPPR point values for events prior to 2015, and the combination of Main/Side tourneys and Periodic tourneys into single line items for World Ranking consideration will remain unchanged."
    Why did you end up changing this rule? All the events prior to 2015 were split...

    It was becoming a huge pain in the butt trying to maintain both systems. The one thing I clearly didn't estimate was the impact the change had to the back end systems.

    Once we started doing some test builds, it was realized that keeping both systems would not only make the rebuild process complicated and slower, it also created some issues with out to effectively present this data to the users.

    #32 4 years ago
    Quoted from alveolus:

    Is anyone having trouble with the new "submit new tournament" form? I'm getting an error every time I try.

    Please shoot a message about your error and maybe a screenshot to ifpapinball@gmail.com.

    We have been fixing some bugs and I had to recycle the caching engine a few times, so you might have just done it at the wrong moment. We've been flooded with results, so I know it's working for most

    1 month later
    #33 4 years ago

    WPPR 5.1 coming soon....
    Played in the Project Pinball Charity tournament at PAPA a few weeks ago, and the rating over the weekend changed from 100% to 32%. Related?
    Apparently 25 games on 1 machine, in 1 round (even for charity) isn't really "competitive"

    #34 4 years ago
    Quoted from funtimewithdave:

    WPPR 5.1 coming soon....
    Played in the Project Pinball Charity tournament at PAPA a few weeks ago, and the rating over the weekend changed from 100% to 32%. Related?

    It is related

    WPPR v5.1 changes are now available on the rankings info page. The Rated players change is not in yet, but should go live in the next couple of weeks.

    Here's a list of the adjustments we're implementing:

    1) Only Rated players will be included in the player count with respect to base value. A player becomes Rated after participating in 5 events lifetime. These unrated players will still be able to earn WPPR points, and impact the distribution of the points from a tournament, but they simply won't be counted towards the 1/2 point per player count for the base. This is to limit the impact of organizers trying to sign up random participants, or worse, list fake names of players that did not participate as a way to artificially increase the base value of the tournament.

    2) We have put a rule in place that you can only play a maximum of 3 meaningful games per machine per 'state/round' of an event. Organizers with only one machine are welcome to do multiple rounds or stages where players are eliminated in the process and be able to capture more meaningful games played, but the 'high score tournament' or average score, etc. with X number of games counting maxes at 3 per physical machine.

    3) For any tournaments that have multiple paths of qualifying for the finals, we will take the SHORTEST of those paths when counting meaningful games played for that portion of the tournament. This is to try and stop the confusing formats where organizers offer a way for players to qualify for an event easily, and then have some subgroup of players also battling out for spots by using a longer process, while being able to capture the games played for that subgroup of players. Couple of examples would be taking having 5 machines and allowing the high score of each machine a spot in the finals, while also giving players a chance to advance to the finals based on their play across all 5 machines. This would now count as ONE meaningful game played because of that potential path for players to reach the finals rather than 5.

    4) For any brackets or group play rounds, we want to promote tournaments using a consistent number of games from round to round. For bracket tournaments we have seen organizers use single game matches throughout, only to then backload the number of games played by having the final match be a best of 25 match. Same thing with group play rounds, we've seen organizers play 3 games per round, except for the last round they would intentionally play 11 rounds in order to reach the 25 games played metric. We will use the minimum number of games for any one round of play in determining how many meaningful games played get counted, so if someone wants to run best of 3 matches they should be making that choice for the entire bracket. They will no longer be able to pick certain rounds to expand that match total, or rather they could, but they would still only be credited for 3 games played for that round. We are okay with the winner's bracket and loser's bracket being different lengths, as long as it's consistent across each of them individually.

    #35 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    1) Only Rated players will be included in the player count with respect to base value. A player becomes Rated after participating in 5 events lifetime. These unrated players will still be able to earn WPPR points, and impact the distribution of the points from a tournament, but they simply won't be counted towards the 1/2 point per player count for the base. This is to limit the impact of organizers trying to sign up random participants, or worse, list fake names of players that did not participate as a way to artificially increase the base value of the tournament.
    .

    I REALLY think this is a step in the wrong direction. I want to promote events to new players and I want regulars to also get new people involved. IF these new people are able to get involved and can win an event then they should also be adding to the base value of the event. Teh 5.0 metric is basically adding more ligitimacy by saying each person you beat shows you are better and hence grows the event value. 5.1 is now saying, well that new guy is not worth anything if you beat him, but if he beats you then too bad for you...

    Take the Madison Pinball Spring Classic for example. A non-rated player took 1st and a non rated player took 3rd. It is completely counterintuitive to not have these guys add 1/2 base point to the value of the event.

    I think this rule change greatly detracts from regular players trying to get new people involved. I see regulars that liked bringing new/ non rated players as the perk was increasing the point value of the event. Even if they get beat by their new buddy, they were turning on someone to pinball and also adding to the base of the event.

    This is putting a strong and artificial bias against new players and has the potential to create waves where they do not need to be made.

    IF you actually have officials that are making up players and cheating then that is a bigger issue that should be addressed at the root.

    I see the reason you are wnating to implement this but dont feel it is addressing the root issue here.

    #36 4 years ago

    In an effort to combat this I will now be running a one game tournament every night just trying to get people rated before the national baby food festival tournament.....

    But for real. It's kinda frustrating because 99% of the people in Fremont, MI aren't rated. They ONLY play in the NBFF open. Fremont is in the middle of nowhere and people aren't going to travel to play other events. So the only solution is to beg people who are rated to drive up north to Fremont.

    Overall I get it, but it seems like a couple people who were severely gaming the system ruined it for the rest of us and that just sucks.

    #37 4 years ago

    We have the chance to be the biggest tournament in Michigan with over 100 players and be worth 10 points to the winner. WOW

    #38 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    4) For any brackets or group play rounds, we want to promote tournaments using a consistent number of games from round to round. For bracket tournaments we have seen organizers use single game matches throughout, only to then backload the number of games played by having the final match be a best of 25 match. Same thing with group play rounds, we've seen organizers play 3 games per round, except for the last round they would intentionally play 11 rounds in order to reach the 25 games played metric. We will use the minimum number of games for any one round of play in determining how many meaningful games played get counted, so if someone wants to run best of 3 matches they should be making that choice for the entire bracket. They will no longer be able to pick certain rounds to expand that match total, or rather they could, but they would still only be credited for 3 games played for that round. We are okay with the winner's bracket and loser's bracket being different lengths, as long as it's consistent across each of them individually.

    Can I get some clarification on how this would/would not impact our Pooley's monthly.

    We currently use 4 games for a qualifying/seeding round. Base don rank following qualifying, the top 4 players are placed int he winners bracket which is a single round of play.

    The playoff round consists of a knock out 4 player game when the lowest score is eliminated, followed by a 3 player knock out where the lowest player is eliminated, followed by a heads up 'best of" where the top 2 players could potentially go head to head for first to 10 out of 19 wins is crowned the champ. Under current 5.0 this is 25 TGP (4 in qual, followed by 21 in playoff round for winner bracket) My understanding is this will be the same in 5.1?

    side note: anyone not i the top 4 are placed ion the losers bracket where they play 2 games to determine final position.

    #39 4 years ago

    Looking briefly at the Madison Pinball Spring Classic results, I only added 1 new player when approving the results.

    This would adjust the base value from 16 points to 15.5 points. When you take into account the TGP, the overall net change is WPPR points from this adjustment looks like it will be 0.34 WPPR's. We're going to lump that as inmaterial.

    Sean Hall is not a non-rated player, unless he's a *new* Sean Hall. I show this tournament as his 6th event lifetime, although he does only have one 'active' event.

    If it's a different/new Sean Hall, then the base value would be reduced to 15 points, and the overall WPPR impact for first place would be 0.68 points.

    I definitely understand where your opinion is coming from, and we'll be watching this closely throughout the year. Overall this is aimed to help smaller communities with a player base that they can actually get interested in pinball long term to help combat the issues with larger communities piggy backing off the casual one-time players that may participate in their events.

    #40 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    If it's a different/new Sean Hall, then the base value would be reduced to 15 points, and the overall WPPR impact for first place would be 0.68 points.

    That is the SAME Sean hall as back in the day, but I assume he was not rated since it was so long ago that he played competitively and had no active events (2003 to 2006). Side note that Sean said he did not play in the add-a-ball in WA and that event must have been erroneously attributed to him? I told him to reach out to you.

    Without that event Spring classic would be only his 5th event, even though he is an amazing player and completely dominated the event.

    #41 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Can I get some clarification on how this would/would not impact our Pooley's monthly.

    We currently use 4 games for a qualifying/seeding round. Base don rank following qualifying, the top 4 players are placed int he winners bracket which is a single round of play.

    The playoff round consists of a knock out 4 player game when the lowest score is eliminated, followed by a 3 player knock out where the lowest player is eliminated, followed by a heads up 'best of" where the top 2 players could potentially go head to head for first to 10 out of 19 wins is crowned the champ.

    side note: anyone not i the top 4 are placed ion the losers bracket where they play 2 games to determine final position.

    This will really be a case-by-case basis. It's really aimed to catch the artificial increases that organizers are doing at the beginning or end of a tournament to add a bunch of meaningful games for no reason other than to increase the TGP.

    A '2 out of 3' bracket that suddenly shifts to a best of 15 for the final match for the WPPR grab.

    Your format is just inconsistent enough throughout that it's right up against something we'd be willing to accept. I'll certainly be sending over the calendar submission to our Country Directors forum to get their opinion on it though going forward

    #42 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    That is the SAME Sean hall as back in the day, but I assume he was not rated since it was so long ago that he played competitively and had no active events (2003 to 2006). Side note that Sean said he did not play in the add-a-ball in WA and that event must have been erroneously attributed to him? I told him to reach out to you.

    Without that event Spring classic would be only his 5th event, even though he is an amazing player and completely dominated the event.

    It is 5 events lifetime, so it sounds like after the Seattle result correction he won't end up adding to the base. This will cost him 0.68 WPPR points ultimately, but again it's an inmaterial amount we're willing to live with at this point.

    #43 4 years ago

    How does "meaningful games played" work in a league? What are we suppose to enter when submitting results?

    #44 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Looking briefly at the Madison Pinball Spring Classic results, I only added 1 new player when approving the results.

    Should you guys really be twiddling with the rules and changing results *as* the season progresses? I understand changing rules for future tournaments, but arbitrarily changing the results of something that already happened might decrease confidence in the system.

    #45 4 years ago
    Quoted from metallik:

    Should you guys really be twiddling with the rules and changing results *as* the season progresses? I understand changing rules for future tournaments, but arbitrarily changing the results of something that already happened might decrease confidence in the system.

    If we see something that materially impacts the accuracy of the rankings, we won't hesitate to make an in-season change. It's happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again.

    Typically it becomes a smell-test thing for us when we're analzying something, and these in-season changes are reserved for things that smell realllllllllllly bad when getting a chance to examine them.

    Decreasing confidence in the WPPR system is only something we have to worry about if people actually had confidence in the system in the first place

    In all seriousness we find that the people who lose confidence in the system based on the changes we make are primarily players who didn't have much confidence in any one of our previous systems over the past 9 years.

    #46 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    It is related
    WPPR v5.1 changes are now available on the rankings info page. The Rated players change is not in yet, but should go live in the next couple of weeks.
    Here's a list of the adjustments we're implementing:
    1) Only Rated players will be included in the player count with respect to base value. A player becomes Rated after participating in 5 events lifetime. These unrated players will still be able to earn WPPR points, and impact the distribution of the points from a tournament, but they simply won't be counted towards the 1/2 point per player count for the base. This is to limit the impact of organizers trying to sign up random participants, or worse, list fake names of players that did not participate as a way to artificially increase the base value of the tournament.
    2) We have put a rule in place that you can only play a maximum of 3 meaningful games per machine per 'state/round' of an event. Organizers with only one machine are welcome to do multiple rounds or stages where players are eliminated in the process and be able to capture more meaningful games played, but the 'high score tournament' or average score, etc. with X number of games counting maxes at 3 per physical machine.
    3) For any tournaments that have multiple paths of qualifying for the finals, we will take the SHORTEST of those paths when counting meaningful games played for that portion of the tournament. This is to try and stop the confusing formats where organizers offer a way for players to qualify for an event easily, and then have some subgroup of players also battling out for spots by using a longer process, while being able to capture the games played for that subgroup of players. Couple of examples would be taking having 5 machines and allowing the high score of each machine a spot in the finals, while also giving players a chance to advance to the finals based on their play across all 5 machines. This would now count as ONE meaningful game played because of that potential path for players to reach the finals rather than 5.
    4) For any brackets or group play rounds, we want to promote tournaments using a consistent number of games from round to round. For bracket tournaments we have seen organizers use single game matches throughout, only to then backload the number of games played by having the final match be a best of 25 match. Same thing with group play rounds, we've seen organizers play 3 games per round, except for the last round they would intentionally play 11 rounds in order to reach the 25 games played metric. We will use the minimum number of games for any one round of play in determining how many meaningful games played get counted, so if someone wants to run best of 3 matches they should be making that choice for the entire bracket. They will no longer be able to pick certain rounds to expand that match total, or rather they could, but they would still only be credited for 3 games played for that round. We are okay with the winner's bracket and loser's bracket being different lengths, as long as it's consistent across each of them individually.

    Are these changes retro-active, or for future events?

    Marcus

    #47 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Decreasing confidence in the WPPR system is only something we have to worry about if people actually had confidence in the system in the first place

    Haha yep Seriously, I've kinda been waiting for things to be figured out before making any kind of real attempt to get points. Tournament attendance costs time and money, and when you're aiming at a moving target, it.. kinda feels like playing Space Mission. But I digress. Right now, I play in tournaments solely for fun, and when the points thing settles down and becomes "set", I'll start playing for those as well. Until then, it costs too much to play for points that can disappear or change on a future rule change.

    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    players who didn't have much confidence in any one of our previous systems over the past 9 years

    Exactly... "systems" .. y'all create complex systems and fiddle with things too often and too much. How many times has the system been revised over those nine years?

    #48 4 years ago
    Quoted from Xerico:

    Are these changes retro-active, or for future events?

    Marcus

    #1 and #2 will be retroactive.

    #3 and #4 will be for future events. We're hoping to get organizers on a better plan of K.I.S.S (no offense to you personally Marcus as we worked through your TPF format together to maximize WPPR's). It's ended up having a really negative impact on the player experience, and part of IFPA's endorsement is to now try and focus on promoting formats that ensure players will understand and enjoy.

    #49 4 years ago
    Quoted from metallik:

    Haha yep Seriously, I've kinda been waiting for things to be figured out before making any kind of real attempt to get points. Tournament attendance costs time and money, and when you're aiming at a moving target, it.. kinda feels like playing Space Mission. But I digress. Right now, I play in tournaments solely for fun, and when the points thing settles down and becomes "set", I'll start playing for those as well. Until then, it costs too much to play for points that can disappear or change on a future rule change.

    Keep waiting Larry! 9 years in and I think we'll have at least another 9 to go to find something close!

    If anyone is actually waiting for us to get WPPR's "right" as the sole reason to go attend tournaments, then I almost feel sorry for you.

    Playing in tournaments, even those with WPPR's are supposed to be FUN regardless. If the potential future changes of the point system can make your tournament experience un-FUN, then you're not doing it right.

    Play . . . enjoy . . . let the WPPR's fall where they fall.

    #50 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    If anyone is actually waiting for us to get WPPR's "right" as the sole reason to go attend tournaments, then I almost feel sorry for you.

    Playing in tournaments, even those with WPPR's are supposed to be FUN regardless. If the potential future changes of the point system can make your tournament experience un-FUN, then you're not doing it right.

    Josh, I don't think you could have read my post any more incorrectly. Let me quote the part you missed:

    Quoted from metallik:

    Right now, I play in tournaments solely for fun, and when the points thing settles down and becomes "set", I'll start playing for those as well. Until then, it costs too much to play for points that can disappear or change on a future rule change.

    That means exactly what is says. I do play in tournaments, and I do enjoy them. But, I play *solely* to have fun. The points, right now, are irrelevant to me. You're getting defensive when you don't need to be. Settle on a points system without constantly making changes, and I (and likely others) would be more inclined to spend money to play in more tournaments, when there is more reward that just fun. That's the only point I'm making

    Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
    $ 45.00
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    The MOD Couple
    $ 36.99
    Eproms
    Matt's Basement Arcade
    From: $ 218.00
    Lighting - Backbox
    Lermods
    $ 69.99
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    Lighted Pinball Mods
    $ 12.00
    Playfield - Other
    Slap Save Creations
    $ 45.00
    $ 7,300.00
    Pinball Machine
    Great American Pinball
    $ 9.99
    Eproms
    Matt's Basement Arcade
    $ 39.99
    Lighting - Interactive
    Lee's Parts
    $ 129.00
    Displays
    Pappy's Pinball Palace
    $ 40.00
    $ 15.00
    Playfield - Decals
    Metal-Mods
    $ 9.95
    Playfield - Protection
    ULEKstore
    $ 40.00
    Cabinet - Toppers
    Rock Custom Pinball
    From: $ 175.00
    Gameroom - Decorations
    Pinball Photos
    $ 45.99
    Eproms
    Matt's Basement Arcade
    $ 29.50
    Playfield - Plastics
    Pinball Haus
    $ 209.99
    Lighting - Led
    PinballBulbs
    $ 300.00
    Tools
    PinDoc Restorations
    $ 159.99
    Lighting - Other
    Lighted Pinball Mods
    $ 999.00
    Flipper Parts
    Mircoplayfields
    $ 999.00
    $ 19.00
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    Sparky Pinball
    From: $ 99.99
    Cabinet - Other
    Lighted Pinball Mods
    There are 242 posts in this topic. You are on page 1 of 5.

    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