First, I want to thank every person who provided games, hours and in my case, incredible patience.

The TPF has always been the highlight of my pinball year and the show did not disappoint.

Unfortunately, the tournaments did. And I am not going to offer up any excuses. It should have been better.

All of the constructive criticism is being taken seriously.

I agree that five tournaments was simply too much.

Coupled with the fact that our TPF custom software was not optimized for the incredible traffic we experienced. We were confident that our software could handle the load because we have used it in countless tournaments. We were wrong.

I accept all responsibility for anyone having a poor tournament experience. The only solace
I can offer is that lessons have been learned and future events will be better.

Once it became apparent that scores were disappearing, being saved against the wrong machine and/or tournament, I had to spend more time fixing data than I did taking scores.

The scorekeeping will be improved.

The tournaments will learn from our mistakes.

And all of the advice and complaints are not going to be ignored.

And while it was painful, we did complete five IFPA events that will each be worth close to 50+ points.

And I am proud that my 100% volunteer crew did a fantastic job.

If anyone cares to communicate directly with me and discuss future improvements, my mailbox is always answered.

Marcus

After taking some time to think on this event, outside of the software issues, there are a few major changes that I intend to make for any event that I run that has multiple days of qualifications.

#1. Create a tournament starter package. I will have to figure out a way to make sure that a player can only buy one starter package per event. But once I do figure that out, this will be used moving forward. This way, players will be able to manage their tournament budget easier.

#2. Increase the number of automatic qualifiers to be greater than or equal to the number of wild card players. So this year, we had a total of 10 players with automatic qualification. Instead, in hindsight, it should have been 16 qualified on Friday and 16 new qualifiers on Saturday. This way, a top 16 Friday or Saturday showing would have secured a playoff spot.

#3. Create scorekeeping backups on the hour every hour.

#4. Give players a tool to confirm their scores OUTSIDE of the scorekeeping process.

#5. Improve scorekeeping so that scores can be captured immediately without process time. Strive to capture all scores in 30 seconds or less.

#6. Add physical communication devices such as Posters, Whiteboards, etc. This will be used to communicate any changes to the event. These changes would include game line up, tilt penalties, balls to play, etc.

#7. Bring back the fun. Have 1-2 "MAX" IFPA point events. Then run events that will score whatever they score.

These are just a few of my thoughts.

I'm sure I'll come up with some more.

Thanks to all of you who offered constructive criticism!

Marcus

This will make the initial entry into the tournaments cheaper. Players will have an opportunity to play the entire bank for a lower initial cost. It will then be up to the player to decide how much more to invest into the tournament. We can also provide a "cheat sheet" that shows clear qualification times, qualification rules and general rules for the machines in the tournament.

I think it will be pretty simple to follow moving forward. If you are in the top 16 players on Day 1 (for example), you qualify for Tournament Playoffs. If you are in the top 16 on Day 2, then you qualify for Tournament Playoffs. If you are a Saturday Top 16, and you qualified on Day 1, your spot will be given to the next person in line. Each day's qualification will fill 40% of the tournament's playoff spots.

If you do not qualify on Friday or Saturday, you still have a chance to qualify as a Wild Card, or 20% of the playoff field. Players that played on Friday & Saturday will have a better chance than those that did not.

I will favor the players that played both days over a player that only played one.

If a player feels cheated about not being able to have two chances at qualifying, then I cannot control his feelings. The rules will be set well in advance.

This statement is not related to the software. It is a measure that I will put in place in case the software fails. It is simply a clean copy of the scores. It will be a local copy stored on a laptop that is not connected to the tournament in any way. Our problem this year was not caused by a failure to properly update the online server. Our problem was caused by scores disappearing after we had captured it and used it for point calculation.

If I have a clean back up of the scores, I will be able to have another software program, different than the one being used in the tournament, to quickly calculate scores and get us back and running in the event of a software failure.

I was not prepared for software failure. I will not make that mistake again. I will be prepared to move forward quickly should the software fail to run properly.

In the eyes of the IFPA, all tournaments are the same. There are no "side tournaments" anymore.

But I plan to do something very similar to what you propose for all of my future events.

1. The "100%" IFPA Tournament(s) w/32 player Playoffs on Sunday: One, maybe two tournaments that strive to have 20 hours of qualifying and 20 significant games.

2. The "fun" IFPA Tournament(s) w/split division Playoffs (8/8/8): Two, maybe three tournaments that strive to have 20 hours of qualifying and a quick playoff system to crown the winners of each division.

3. The "fun" non-IFPA Tournament(s): Women, Kids, Seniors, Teens, 8-Man Battle Royal, etc. These are events that simply award trophies and/or other prizes.

As I have said before, lessons were learned. Our Texas tournaments will continue to evolve as we find that happy medium between costs, points and fun.

I won't change the minds of those that have written off anything that I do in Texas, so I'm not going to waste a single thought on trying to win them back.

Instead, I'm going to focus on the players that are interested in attending again. And it's their feedback that will drive me to adjust and try again.

Marcus

I wasn't speaking specifically about TPF. Just in any of my tournaments in the future.

Timing would be changed to accommodate a time limit.

Marcus

First, just because I have a differing opinion does not mean that I have not absorbed all of the feedback. I am capable of listening to an opinion, evaluating it myself, and then deciding if I wish to adopt it. If I adopt it, then I could possibly anger someone else who opposed it. If I don't adopt it, then I anger the person who supported it. It's a catch-22. So the best approach is to move forward with the one that I find the most agreeable.

Second, the logic behind 2 days of separate qualifying is to appease the following groups:

1. Players on Friday who get mad that they have to play on Saturday to protect their scores.
2. Players on Saturday who feel it is unfair that the must compete against scores from Friday.
3. Players that get mad that they must sacrifice some of their show experience by "babying" their scores.
4. Players that get upset that today's game scores are higher on average than the day before.
5. Players that get upset that yesterday's game scores are higher on average than today.
6. Players that want their top 10 score on Friday to mean something.
7. Players that want their top 10 score on Saturday to mean something.
8. Players that get mad that the tournament is not maximizing its potential.
9. Players that get mad that a game that was working well on Friday is now not working as well on Saturday.

It's nearly impossible to please everyone. During a competitive situation, players can become incredibly sensitive to situations that would normally not affect them. But if I make each day compete against scores from that day, then the playing field was as level as can be expected. and there are some added benefits as far as the actual event is concerned.

From my point of view, as a tournament director, having two different days of qualifying simplifies things.

1. It gives me flexibility to replace a game that is not performing as desired or is simply not fit for competitive play in its current state.
2. It provides me the opportunity to fix a game so that it does not unfairly affect other players. If a game's tilt was too loose on Friday, then I can adjust the tilt for Saturday. But if the qualification is not broken up into separate sessions, then the loose tilt must remain for the entire duration of qualification.
3. It allows a player to budget their show time as they see fit.
4. It shortens the playoff rounds in situations where the event is seeking a full 100% grade because the significant games attributed to qualification rounds have doubled.
5. It can actually save players money. A player does not have to play on any particular day to have a shot at making the playoffs.
6. It protects me in the event a game lasts one full day, but does not last very long on the second day. If the qualifying was one continuous qualification, then players on the first day have a tremendous advantage over the players who only played on the second day. IFPA rules dictate that the scores from the first day would remain and the game qualifications would be over since the game was in service for more than 50% of the qualification time.
7. It allows qualification machines to be worth double the number of significant games. At 4% per game, that is pretty substantial in my opinion.
8. It is the simplest form of qualification. Finish in the top X on one of two days, and you make the playoffs. I personally do not see how that is not a simple format.

As for the wild cards, I can do one of two things.

The first thing is not allow any wild cards. If you do not qualify on Friday or Saturday, you just do not make the playoffs. That's the simplest method for determining a playoff. There are no calculations that span multiple days. You either qualified on Friday or you qualified on Saturday. While simple, it also eliminates players that were contenders, but just could not pull off a day to get into the top 16.

The second thing I can do is allow wild cards. This adds a little "Cinderella" vibe to the playoffs. But there has to be a way to fairly assign the wild card spots. Both groups failed to qualify by placing in the top 16 on either day. And in my opinion, players that dedicated two days to qualifying deserve the shot at the playoffs more than a player that only dedicated one day.

I prefer to include wild cards, but I can also see the merits of just having a set limit and moving forward with that limit.

I can discuss the pros & cons of the 2 day qualification for days. The point is that I believe that the two day qualification benefits more players and situations than a single qualification period that spans 2 days. It doubles the number of significant games and it uses the same amount of time. And outside of a pure head-to-head event, HERB is going to be the most desired by players as it allows a player to recover from one or two bad games.

I am listening to all constructive criticism. I'm balancing the different opinions. And I am absorbing them all. But it is highly unlikely that I will make every single opinionated player happy. I will have to dismiss some ideas that were absorbed, but found to be lacking. All I can do is continue to try and create events that will be fun and rewarding to the large majority of the participants.

I really don't have much more to say on this thread. The proof of improvement will come after future events. TPF 2015 is in the past. More events are in the future. Players will judge the event. If attendance continues to grow, then I am moving in the proper direction. If events start and end on time, then I am improving. If events are fair for everyone involved, then I am improving.

And if some do not like my approach, that's ok. We can simply agree to disagree and move on and enjoy some pinball.

Marcus

A great idea lost in the chaos.

We should have used it but it fell out of our radar as we struggled to get the scores entered properly

We will use it better in the future.

Marcus

Excellent idea Brian. I'm going to steal it!

Marcus