A second example, this from the last New England tournament. First day, some people have been playing Family Guy and the high is around 50 million. I put a 400 million on the game. The effect was that very few players even tried to play Family Guy from there on, because the relative value of points was suppressed. I had similar reactions to other players' big games -- it didn't make me want to step up and have a big game. Instead, it made me less likely to play that game, because I could be more efficient playing something else.
In the PAPA scoring format, a monster score is worth a lot, but also won't stifle the other players' competition on a machine. The positives that triadwatch posts about still occur: you still can see which pins you think you can better your score at, taking away points from a competitor. I feel there is also a positive feedback for novice players in a system that gives points by position instead of by score -- the novice player gets to say they finished 29th on a game, instead of saying they got 3% of the best player's score.
The PAPA scoring format is used at a large number of major events, including Pinball Expo, INDISC, California Extreme, and the NW Pinball Championships, all of whom independently chose this format. There are multiple software packages available to run the format.
One thing Aurcade used to have as a huge positive was the ability to enter scores on tablets and have instant updating, but this is now possible using Karl DeAngelo's "Drains Tournament Manager" software. This software also configures and runs final rounds, and has been used at many big events in the last two years to increase efficiency and save scorekeepers' sanity.
It's all good, and I'm glad for anyone who takes the time to organize an event, regardless of the scoring. It's a huge undertaking and deserves a big pile of thank you.