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?

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.

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.

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.

Who or what is FLR?

just curious, what is his motivation behind this?

seems like an odd thing to put so much effort in

This is BY far the best compromise I have seen tossed out.

This is very logical and makes it slightly more fair to all while still incentivizing players that are point hounds to get their buddies to come play and to also return.

This also is logically the inverse to the current TPA (I think that is what it is called) value that a good players adds to the base. If someone has fewer than 5 competitions the assumption is that thye are not as good and hence less of a challenge to beat by experienced players. However, with pinball there are times where even a 1st timer can win an entire event. Also times where someone may not have IFPA experience but is a damn fine player and can win a big event without even being rated yet.

What do you think about this compromise Josh?

I really like the 5.0 move to give a base for each player. It makes sense that the more people you beat, the more skilled you are.

I did not like the previous style of limiting the events at 1 location as the new format is more conducive to promoting pinball play.

5.1 is a step back (not the end of the world) as new players are not treated fairly in their respective value. This to me does not fit a logical assumption, esp with a base of zero and for 5 events. In WI, it will take a new players likely 6-8months before they add to the value, yet they can win at any point.

I understand there are limitations to the current system and algorithm, but please don't let that constraint make the decision.

I want to continue to see competitive pinball grow, both through the direct efforts of organizing events and through the latent effects of friends bringing someone else along. Please don't put up barriers to WPPR points or make it more convoluted than it needs to be. As you know and say, points are an incentive to many, so lets use that incentive to promote even more. There must be some level of compromise to fine tune it.

Like Steve Ritchie says if 2 respected people tell you it sucks then it probably sucks. I know that is in regards to pinball design, but I think it is applicable here also. We have seen quite a few of the more active organizers say that they feel it needs some fine tuning. To me that speaks volumes

cheers

say this after hitting send post

thumbs up!

side note >> has the date been set for SCS for 2015? I assume sometime in February 2016, but would like to know specific date if possible.

I am trying to start making plans for WI SCS and secure a good location so knowing the exact date now will help with that.