Bristow, VA
Quoted from bkerins:Not just zero ... but 00,000,000!
Teed off! And WHO Dunnit have similar "double your score or reset to zero" features. Really really horrible idea, balance wise.
(Topic ID: 96622)
Quoted from Ruger:Very interesting changes coming. I think it is a positive for leagues, especially those that play as many games as FSPA does in one season.
I'm also looking forward to how it affects house tournaments. My quarterly tournament averages more players than many annual ones do (~35) so those points will go up.
The real question is will the cool all-day house tournaments where players travel 2-4 hours to play still get players from afar? Or will those players focus on more local events now that they can get the same or more points without traveling so far.
The one caveat to the new change, because we're allowing people to run as many events as they would like, as often as they would like.
Residences will only be allowed to host ONE endorsed tournament per year.
This is to stop someone from running a tournament at their house every single night of the year, and actually be able to count all 365 events. Even at fractions of a WPPR point per event, they could seriously impact the SCS of that state.
This change will definitely shift the SCS standings to be based on local events, as all of those monthly/weekly events no longer have to split value with themselves during the year.
Quoted from sleethering:Will a player's active results remain as their top 15?
It's actually going to expand from the top 15, most likely to the top 20 (to accommodate all of those Main+Side events that will now count as two events on a player's resume).
For a while we will have some 'old formula' data, mixed with 'new formula' data on a player's resume, but that will work itself out over time as more new results come in, and the other results continue to decay.
Quoted from pezpunk:Teed off! And WHO dunnit have similar "double your score or reset to zero" features. Really really horrible idea, balance wise.
WhoDunnit's feature can't be compared to Tee'd Off. In tournament mode the roulette alternates between losing and winning on each bet that you choose to accept (starting with a loss), so it's completely predictable whether or not you'll win. Even when you know you're going to lose, you can wait to accept the bet until it's a small point value so you don't lose many points.
Makes sense to increase the number of active results.
Should be interesting in the first year, seeing how new values balance out with the old system. I'd expect it will start to even itself out once old events start losing 25% value (unless that is changing?).
Quoted from ifpapinball:However, depending on the number of players in your league you may see the overall value actually decrease compared to the current rules.
Oh smeg.... lol...
I just remembered what I was going to ask a few hours ago... is there going to be a change to how many tournaments are showing up on your "Active" status, or are we still going to have the same "cap" on number of qualified events that count towards actual points? I don't think it ultimately matters either way for me personally, but seems like with many more entries being made, it might be easier to "cap out" under the new system.
*Edit* NEVERMIND, THIS WAS JUST ANSWERED LOL.
Quoted from sleethering:Makes sense to increase the number of active results.
Should be interesting in the first year, seeing how new values balance out with the old system. I'd expect it will start to even itself out once old events start losing 25% value (unless that is changing?).
I'm equally interested to see when things will start to shift and include more 'new results' for players.
With the monthly tournaments being combined into one cumulative resume event under the old system, it's going to be tough to crack a monthly tournaments on your top 20 the new way until things decay a bit.
If you did well in PAPA Classics in the past, since those 3 tournaments no longer have to share 'side tournament' value with eachother, players are likely to see a boost for each of those individual Classics tournaments.
Quoted from ifpapinball:The one caveat to the new change, because we're allowing people to run as many events as they would like, as often as they would like.
Residences will only be allowed to host ONE endorsed tournament per year.
This is to stop someone from running a tournament at their house every single night of the year, and actually be able to count all 365 events. Even at fractions of a WPPR point per event, they could seriously impact the SCS of that state.
This change will definitely shift the SCS standings to be based on local events, as all of those monthly/weekly events no longer have to split value with themselves during the year.
In theory I get it, but it sounds like this is going to open its own can of worms. We will definitely need to see the official details.
The way I read it, every event at a unique house or location could be a "major", depending on who shows up, how many games, etc.
Local clubs and metropolitan areas with many collectors, or good players, or numerous locations are going to have a field day cashing in SCS points. It is going to punish those who do not live near the pinball hot beds or know many collectors in their state. It will be exponentially worse than trying to travel to a major show for 3 days.
Further, with private collectors hosting, space will be an issue as well as the potential for exclusivity. That is, it is doubtful many private collectors will want every player across the state showing up at their home looking for WPPR points.
It will be easy to exclude folks even if the event has to be advertised. The general city is known ,but even now some events read "Private location, contact director". So, with space an issue, one could see where some non local people are excluded in favor of locals. Sorry, we never got the email request, all spots are filled.
Majors used to be at shows or large facilities, where the public is welcome and the tourney is open (for the most part, Pinburgh comes to mind as it tends to sell out).
Unless I am reading it wrong, the irony will be that winning a PAPA circuit event in a state could be trivial compared to the sum of the day to day points available, which seems counter intuitive to what the intent of a state and world ranking of players should be.
Quoted from pinballcorpse:Further, with private collectors hosting, space will be an issue as well as the potential for exclusivity. That is, it is doubtful many private collectors will want every player across the state showing up at their home looking for WPPR points.
It was just stated rule on private locations is still 1/year ranked event...
If they're excluding people, they're only handicapping themselves and everyone that does attend.
Quoted from pinballcorpse:Unless I am reading it wrong, the irony will be that winning a PAPA circuit event in a state could be trivial compared to the sum of the day to day points available, which seems counter intuitive to what the intent of a state and world ranking of players should be.
No, the irony is that this is EXACTLY what people were asking for when SCS was announced. There were complaints that SCS tournament would qualify for the next year's rankings.... this will mitigate that, quite a bit...
Quoted from Frax:No, the irony is that this is EXACTLY what people were asking for when SCS was announced. There were complaints that SCS tournament would qualify for the next year's rankings.... this will mitigate that, quite a bit...
I agree 100% that the SC event should not count toward the next year's points. It was like a form of compound interest. Play all year earning points to get invited to the state, then win the state and earn points and and earn points at the Nationals.
But winning the Nationals which one would think is a major event, was worth less than winning a PAPA circuit event in one's state. That is hard to explain to someone not in the know about the WPPR system.
As I said I am looking forward to reading the new rules and hoping there are not unintended exploits sitting out there.
Quoted from pinballcorpse:Further, with private collectors hosting, space will be an issue as well as the potential for exclusivity. That is, it is doubtful many private collectors will want every player across the state showing up at their home looking for WPPR points.
It will be easy to exclude folks even if the event has to be advertised. The general city is known ,but even now some events read "Private location, contact director". So, with space an issue, one could see where some non local people are excluded in favor of locals. Sorry, we never got the email request, all spots are filled.
Majors used to be at shows or large facilities, where the public is welcome and the tourney is open (for the most part, Pinburgh comes to mind as it tends to sell out).
Unless I am reading it wrong, the irony will be that winning a PAPA circuit event in a state could be trivial compared to the sum of the day to day points available, which seems counter intuitive to what the intent of a state and world ranking of players should be.
With the base value calculated by the number of players that participate, any house tournaments with limited participant numbers won't be able to compete with the likes of a substantial full weekend event.
If you have an example house tournament by you that is currently getting the full 25 base points because it's by default, I can certainly run the new formula on that tournament and let you know how it changes.
The big shift is that the World Rankings and the State Rankings will now have a shift in motivation. If I run 500 small tournaments in a state, worth 1 point each . . . those won't have any impact on a player's top 20 resume, which is what their World Ranking is based on. For the SCS, it will definitely have a HUGE impact on the state standings. This makes the opportunity for out-of-state players who come into town to play one weekend event, no longer able to qualify for that state based on just that result, solving possibly the biggest issue we've heard about the SCS after the first year. SCS is about growing the local tournament scene, and rewarding those players that get out and play the most, and play the best. It is NOT a State "ranking" in the same respect as a player's World Ranking.
Keswick, ON
Quoted from pinballcorpse:In theory I get it, but it sounds like this is going to open its own can of worms. We will definitely need to see the official details.
The way I read it, every event at a unique house or location could be a "major", depending on who shows up, how many games, etc.
Local clubs and metropolitan areas with many collectors, or good players, or numerous locations are going to have a field day cashing in SCS points. It is going to punish those who do not live near the pinball hot beds or know many collectors in their state. It will be exponentially worse than trying to travel to a major show for 3 days.
Further, with private collectors hosting, space will be an issue as well as the potential for exclusivity. That is, it is doubtful many private collectors will want every player across the state showing up at their home looking for WPPR points.
It will be easy to exclude folks even if the event has to be advertised. The general city is known ,but even now some events read "Private location, contact director". So, with space an issue, one could see where some non local people are excluded in favor of locals. Sorry, we never got the email request, all spots are filled.
Majors used to be at shows or large facilities, where the public is welcome and the tourney is open (for the most part, Pinburgh comes to mind as it tends to sell out).
Unless I am reading it wrong, the irony will be that winning a PAPA circuit event in a state could be trivial compared to the sum of the day to day points available, which seems counter intuitive to what the intent of a state and world ranking of players should be.
It's basically the exact opposite of what you are saying, locations with small player caps and space constraints will not be able to meet the minimum attendance requirements and as a result will be graded much lower then that of a major tournament.
The main point of the system is to stop the 5 person, basement arcade tournaments that are currently seeing the same value as a 40 person, multi-day tournament.
It's about creating quality in events and trying to move the hobby forward from a competitive standpoint.
Quoted from pinballcorpse:But winning the Nationals which one would think is a major event, was worth less than winning a PAPA circuit event in one's state. That is hard to explain to someone not in the know about the WPPR system.
Besides pinball's Grand Slam (PAPA/IFPA/EPC/Pinburgh), there are no 'major' distinctions. Nationals will be graded the same way any PAPA circuit event would be graded . . . it gets even worse under the new system.
The big thing that kills the Nationals is that there were only 25 players, versus SPF last year that had 81 players.
Here's the breakdown of value under the new system for both of those:
Nationals --> 12.5 base points, 17.94 TVA, 100% grade = 30.44 points (down from 42.94)
SPF --> 32 base points, 21.67 TVA, 87% grade = 46.69 points (up from 46.68)
This impacts the State Championship tournaments themselves greatly under the new system as well:
Florida SCS --> 8 base points, 5.75 TVA, 100% grade = 13.75 points (down from 30.76)
These new rules address the 5 person in the basement tournaments by reducing the points based on the size, format and rankings of the players. There is no need to limit the number of tournaments also. That then negatively affects the successful residence tournaments that have more attendees than many public venue tournaments.
Pittsburgh Pinball Open and Fairfax Pinball Open (2013) had less than 32 A players in the main tournament. My quarterly tournaments out of my house have an average of 35 players and everyone knows they're getting only 1/4 WPPRs.
New rules have basically thrown the baby (non-exploiting successful residence tournaments that everyone should aspire to hosting) out with the bathwater (the 5 player tournaments that probably don't affect SCS or IFPA rankings in any real way to begin with).
This caveat doesn't promote the growth of pinball.
Quoted from Ruger:This caveat doesn't promote the growth of pinball.
How many non-pinball people were exposed to pinball at PPO and FPO vs a residence tournament?
In my experience, running events in public helps grow the game more than running them in private. This isn't to say some residence tournaments don't excel in many ways, but the caveat doesn't eliminate them either. The change encourages people to do more stuff outside of their homes for others to see / learn / experience, and that should grow the game in new areas and draw in new interest.
Kevin - You are missing what the impact WOULD be under the new system for SCS.
If I run a tournament in my house, every night, with my family of 4, I can earn up to 2 points per night assuming I run a 'quality' format with my wife, 2 year old son and 3 month old daughter.
Multiply that by 365 and I can earn 730 WPPR points for the Illinois SCS, which has a HUGE impact on the SCS . . . especially if I win all of them (which I better or else I have bigger problems).
The only potential way around this that I'm interested in is whether hosts agree to make their address public on our site, without a cap to the number of players that can show up. At that point you're pretty much acting as a "public venue" out of your own house.
On the bright side your house tournament wouldn't be worth 1/4 WPPR's, so you could in theory still run 1 a year per points, and 3 per year 'for fun', and end up with the same amount of WPPR points awarded in either case.
What MHS said is pretty much spot on . . . unleashing the beast on allowing people to run as many tournaments as they would like is supposed to help grow location pinball and get new players interested. The idea of giving the same group of people the opportunity to run as many events as they would like privately wasn't a motivating factor behind the switch to WPPR v5.0.
Quoted from Snailman:This should really be its own new separate thread, imho.
That thread will be coming October 1st . . . remember this is just the announcement before the actual EPIC announcement 
Quoted from mhs:How many non-pinball people were exposed to pinball at PPO and FPO vs a residence tournament?
In my experience, running events in public helps grow the game more than running them in private. This isn't to say some residence tournaments don't excel in many ways, but the caveat doesn't eliminate them either. The change encourages people to do more stuff outside of their homes for others to see / learn / experience, and that should grow the game in new areas and draw in new interest.
I agree but why limit any area of promoting pinball? I know quite a few new players like myself that took it to the next level solely because of house tournaments. Going to PAPA is incredible but also a touch out of reality. I wasn't inspired to own games due to PAPA because it was just so big and awesome, nothing I could ever achieve. Going to my first house tournament was my inspiration to buy machines and host tournaments out of home since it was something I didn't even realize could be done, and it was equally awesome. But also, a majority of people I know the best that are non-local, I began meeting at house tournaments. You get a chance to know people in smaller groups. PAPA is now a huge extension of that, but to me at least it becomes more of a re-union with everyone I've met at smaller public and house tournaments.
My opinion is that to grow pinball, every aspect or avenue should be taken, not just limited to a few big cities or geographical areas that have a large concentration of public venues. Eliminating one area (residence) of that growth doesn't automatically make the other areas (public) better.
Quoted from Ruger:I agree but why limit any area of promoting pinball? I know quite a few new players like myself that took it to the next level solely because of house tournaments. Going to PAPA is incredible but also a touch out of reality. I wasn't inspired to own games due to PAPA because it was just so big and awesome, nothing I could ever achieve. Going to my first house tournament was my inspiration to buy machines and host tournaments out of home since it was something I didn't even realize could be done, and it was equally awesome. But also, a majority of people I know the best that are non-local, I began meeting at house tournaments. You get a chance to know people in smaller groups. PAPA is now a huge extension of that, but to me at least it becomes more of a re-union with everyone I've met at smaller public and house tournaments.
My opinion is that to grow pinball, every aspect or avenue should be taken, not just limited to a few big cities or geographical areas that have a large concentration of public venues. Eliminating one area (residence) of that growth doesn't automatically make the other areas (public) better.
For the record, I agree with the vast majority of what you say here. We'll chat by e-mail.
Whatever the outcome of the new points system I am just happy there is so much interest in competive pinball and pinball in general.
After tearing my ACL, breaking my thumb, and some other minor injuries in a short span of time (and I wasn't getting any younger along the way) pinball was about the only "sport" I could compete at for about a year and I got really into it. Didnt think that many people were really into it, but it seems that it is growing exponentially over the last few years and that is awesome to see....kudos to the IFPA for putting together everything. I ain't gonna complain 'cause there is no way in hell I'd want that task...I'm sure it will end up just fine and promote pinball just the same as the old system.
Going back to the original post...any reliable game seems to work for 98% of tourny's....just my opinion, but for games that a certain ramp shot takes the ball directly back to the flipper after each successful shot (see Bad Cats or Dr. dude), you will find that good players hit it again, and again, and again...it does take some serious skill....but it makes for boring long play... Again, very few people can do that but top 100 players will play those games all night.
Just so I can respond to the original thread, lol.
For games with random features, just set it to Competition Play in the settings and it will eliminate some of the random stuff you want to avoid. But some of the games should be avoided that provide the non-skillful changes that MHS mentioned, like Catch Up where a mystery award gives the player the same points as the highest score in the multi-player game. Those are never good in a tournament.
Quoted from ifpapinball:The one caveat to the new change, because we're allowing people to run as many events as they would like, as often as they would like.
Residences will only be allowed to host ONE endorsed tournament per year.
This is to stop someone from running a tournament at their house every single night of the year, and actually be able to count all 365 events. Even at fractions of a WPPR point per event, they could seriously impact the SCS of that state.
This change will definitely shift the SCS standings to be based on local events, as all of those monthly/weekly events no longer have to split value with themselves during the year.
Does this mean that leagues will now have to submit results at the end of each event instead of the end of the season?
Also, as an example. Tucson Pinball League. Growing player market, so rankings are constantly improving for the group of regulars. If we play 8 games per event and have 12 players, would it be more valuable to increase the machine count or the player count? Both if possible? I think a lot of this depends on if we have to submit after each event, or just the season results. Just want to make it the best league I can.
Quoted from desertT1:Does this mean that leagues will now have to submit results at the end of each event instead of the end of the season?
Leagues will be able to submit at the end of the season just as before. The grading of that season will encompass the data from all of the events within the season, which should help make it grade out to a much higher percentage.
Quoted from ifpapinball:Leagues will be able to submit at the end of the season just as before. The grading of that season will encompass the data from all of the events within the season, which should help make it grade out to a much higher percentage.
I did a ninja edit to the previous post. Here's another curiosity:
Also, as an example. Tucson Pinball League. Growing player market, so rankings are constantly improving for the group of regulars. If we play 8 games per event and have 12 players, would it be more valuable to increase the machine count or the player count? Both if possible? I think a lot of this depends on if we have to submit after each event, or just the season results. Just want to make it the best league I can.
Quoted from desertT1:I did a ninja edit to the previous post. Here's another curiosity:
Also, as an example. Tucson Pinball League. Growing player market, so rankings are constantly improving for the group of regulars. If we play 8 games per event and have 12 players, would it be more valuable to increase the machine count or the player count? Both if possible? I think a lot of this depends on if we have to submit after each event, or just the season results. Just want to make it the best league I can.
If you play 8 games per event, and have 12 players, you have room to grow in both areas.
Here's the difference between submitting each session, versus submitting at the end of the season (assuming 5 sessions):
Each session would have a base value of 1.92 WPPR points. In total this would be 9.60 WPPR points, but be listed as 5 separate entries on a player's resume.
If you submit at the end of the season, it would have a base value of 6.00 WPPR points. This would only be listed as 1 entry on a player's resume.
So for the SCS you would be up about 3.60 points submitting them individually, but would limit the ability for players to move up the world rankings by filling their resume up with low value events (sort of the balancing act of what the new system is all about).
Quoted from ifpapinball:If you play 8 games per event, and have 12 players, you have room to grow in both areas.
Here's the difference between submitting each session, versus submitting at the end of the season (assuming 5 sessions):
Each session would have a base value of 1.92 WPPR points. In total this would be 9.60 WPPR points, but be listed as 5 separate entries on a player's resume.
If you submit at the end of the season, it would have a base value of 6.00 WPPR points. This would only be listed as 1 entry on a player's resume.
So for the SCS you would be up about 3.60 points submitting them individually, but would limit the ability for players to move up the world rankings by filling their resume up with low value events (sort of the balancing act of what the new system is all about).
Is this base value changing in the new system, or have I misread somewhere on the current format?
We play coin-drop on location, with up to 28 games +/- available to us. 8 games puts us at about 2 hours. We could add more games easily if that was beneficial. Again, this is with a league, not a tournament, so that might not play into it. I will keep eye peeled for the next round of info and what is required for submitting.
Quoted from desertT1:Is this base value changing in the new system, or have I misread somewhere on the current format?
We play coin-drop on location, with up to 28 games +/- available to us. 8 games puts us at about 2 hours. We could add more games easily if that was beneficial. Again, this is with a league, not a tournament, so that might not play into it. I will keep eye peeled for the next round of info and what is required for submitting.
Base value is no longer guaranteed at 25 points. It will now be earned based on the number of players that play.
The entire value of the tournament will now be impacted based on a grading system. The max for the grading is 100%, and thus a tournament gets to keep their entire value earned.
Adding more games played for the night is a better test of skill for those tournament players, and will increase your grade for that event.
A quick example would be:
If you play 8 games per event, and have 12 players, your value is 1.92 WPPR points for that event.
If you increase that to 10 games per event, and still have 12 players, your value would increase to 2.40 WPPR points for that event.
You can definitely continue to increase the value of that event by playing more meaningful games of pinball, which of course takes more time investment from the organizers to run . . . so the system is meant to reward those that put more time into running their events.
Quoted from ifpapinball:Base value is no longer guaranteed at 25 points. It will now be earned based on the number of players that play.
The entire value of the tournament will now be impacted based on a grading system. The max for the grading is 100%, and thus a tournament gets to keep their entire value earned.
Adding more games played for the night is a better test of skill for those tournament players, and will increase your grade for that event.
A quick example would be:
If you play 8 games per event, and have 12 players, your value is 1.92 WPPR points for that event.
If you increase that to 10 games per event, and still have 12 players, your value would increase to 2.40 WPPR points for that event.
You can definitely continue to increase the value of that event by playing more meaningful games of pinball, which of course takes more time investment from the organizers to run . . . so the system is meant to reward those that put more time into running their events.
Cool, thanks for the info. Do you know what is going to be required for submitting league results? I might as well get in the habit of doing that now. Currently, it's just the player list and rankings AFAIK. In the future will that be expanded to the # of games played at each event, data exported from Arcade Tournament Manager, ...?
Quoted from desertT1:Cool, thanks for the info. Do you know what is going to be required for submitting league results? I might as well get in the habit of doing that now. Currently, it's just the player list and rankings AFAIK. In the future will that be expanded to the # of games played at each event, data exported from Arcade Tournament Manager, ...?
There will be additional information needing for the submissions to help grade the tournament properly, but we also plan on trying to get a ton of information up front in the calendar submission process.
The most popular question we get is what kind of estimate we have on what an upcoming tournament will be worth.
Since this will highly depend on the format of the event, it's important we have that information early.
The results submission process we be more about confirming the format that was submitted was actually executed, and handling any cases where this was ambiguous (for example a double elimination bracket can significantly vary how many games were played based on how many participants show up).
I'm not sure whether I'm understand the new value system correctly. For example, I run periodic weeknight tournaments at a location near me using a double elimination bracket. The last tournament had 21 players, and it ended up being worth a little over 7 points to the winner. Based on the numbers being used in the league play example above, it seems like I should expect the value of these events to drop significantly, is that correct?
Quoted from Flamethrower:I'm not sure whether I'm understand the new value system correctly. For example, I run periodic weeknight tournaments at a location near me using a double elimination bracket. The last tournament had 21 players, and it ended up being worth a little over 7 points to the winner. Based on the numbers being used in the league play example above, it seems like I should expect the value of these events to drop significantly, is that correct?
Echa - Right now you're getting a base value of 6.25 for each event (guaranteed), plus some TVA points based on who played. This added up to the 7.11 WPPR points for the June tournament you ran.
The new way doesn't care that it's a "periodic" tournament. It only cares about the format you ran, and will be worth as much or as little based on that grading percentage and the number of players that play.
Here's a breakdown of that same exact tournament under the new system:
Base value of 10.5 points
TVA of 3.43 points
Total value = 13.93 WPPR points
Then we grade your tournament format, which you said is a double elimination bracket for 21 players. Assuming each match is a single game that would grade out to 44%. If you ran a tournament that graded out to 100%, you would get the entire 13.93 WPPR points awarded.
Your total value for that event after grading would be 6.13 WPPR points.
The difference is, you can run that same event as many times as you would like under the new system. Under the old system we would just continue to split the points over however many you ended up running for the calendar year.
Quoted from ifpapinball:Besides pinball's Grand Slam (PAPA/IFPA/EPC/Pinburgh), there are no 'major' distinctions. Nationals will be graded the same way any PAPA circuit event would be graded . . . it gets even worse under the new system.
The big thing that kills the Nationals is that there were only 25 players, versus SPF last year that had 81 players.
Here's the breakdown of value under the new system for both of those:
Nationals --> 12.5 base points, 17.94 TVA, 100% grade = 30.44 points (down from 42.94)
SPF --> 32 base points, 21.67 TVA, 87% grade = 46.69 points (up from 46.68)
This impacts the State Championship tournaments themselves greatly under the new system as well:
Florida SCS --> 8 base points, 5.75 TVA, 100% grade = 13.75 points (down from 30.76)
What I was trying to convey was that people who are not involved in competing are quite puzzled that something called the "National Pinball Championships" and awards WPPR points, gives fewer points than a monthly PAPA circuit event.
It is confusing for many people to grasp and difficult to explain.
I'll try to keep my comments limited on this thread as it derailed fast from the OP.
Sorry
Quoted from ifpapinball:Echa - Right now you're getting a base value of 6.25 for each event (guaranteed), plus some TVA points based on who played. This added up to the 7.11 WPPR points for the June tournament you ran.
The new way doesn't care that it's a "periodic" tournament. It only cares about the format you ran, and will be worth as much or as little based on that grading percentage and the number of players that play.
Here's a breakdown of that same exact tournament under the new system:Base value of 10.5 pointsTVA of 3.43 pointsTotal value = 13.93 WPPR points
Then we grade your tournament format, which you said is a double elimination bracket for 21 players. Assuming each match is a single game that would grade out to 44%. If you ran a tournament that graded out to 100%, you would get the entire 13.93 WPPR points awarded.
Your total value for that event after grading would be 6.13 WPPR points.
The difference is, you can run that same event as many times as you would like under the new system. Under the old system we would just continue to split the points over however many you ended up running for the calendar year.
This will go a long way to adjusting the imbalance that exists for monthlies right now. Those are worth about 2 points and you'd have to win each of them through the year to match the points from beating most of the same people at an annual event like Zapcon.
Quoted from desertT1:This will go a long way to adjusting the imbalance that exists for monthlies right now. Those are worth about 2 points and you'd have to win each of them through the year to match the points from beating most of the same people at an annual event like Zapcon.
You got it 
Quoted from ifpapinball:You got it
Awesome. That will be well received in my area.
Can I ask that you do a calculation for me? League play, 10 months, one event per month. 12 players, 8 games. Does it matter that if we do one at a house, the game list might only be 6 games? Current players are in the 3000-8000 range, but have only been getting points since the beginning of the year, so that range is dropping each month.
Have all the base points for the next format been posted?
Quoted from desertT1:Can I ask that you do a calculation for me? League play, 10 months, one event per month. 12 players, 8 games. Does it matter that if we do one at a house, the game list might only be 6 games? Current players are in the 3000-8000 range, but have only been getting points since the beginning of the year, so that range is dropping each month.
Have all the base points for the next format been posted?
8 games per month for 12 players = 1.92 WPPR points
If it ends up only being 6 games, it would be reduced to 1.44 WPPR points for that session.
If you wait until the end of the season you get to count the games played across all sessions, grading out to 100%. You would then get to keep your base value of 6 WPPR points for the season.
Quoted from ifpapinball:8 games per month for 12 players = 1.92 WPPR points
If it ends up only being 6 games, it would be reduced to 1.44 WPPR points for that session.
If you wait until the end of the season you get to count the games played across all sessions, grading out to 100%. You would then get to keep your base value of 6 WPPR points for the season.
I think I get it. I don't think I could explain it, but will likely have to wait to see the math (if that is posted) when the new format is released.
Josh, I have a couple of questions.
1. Right now I do one tournament at my house a year( 2 this year, 1 being the Oursler tournament). With my address posted and with no limits. I really could do 3 or 4. 27 games at the house.Had 20 players at one and 27 at the other.
2. What about pin golf? Since people could play 19 games at my house with 20 people. That would be a wild Base number.
3. In the league I am in now we play 4 games in a pinburgh format of 3 for win 2 for 2nd and 1 for third and 0 for 4th. with a max of 4 games being played.24 players. What would be the base for that? That would be a loser in the new format right. 8 months
Thanks
Quoted from ifpapinball:The one caveat to the new change, because we're allowing people to run as many events as they would like, as often as they would like.
Residences will only be allowed to host ONE endorsed tournament per year.
This is to stop someone from running a tournament at their house every single night of the year, and actually be able to count all 365 events. Even at fractions of a WPPR point per event, they could seriously impact the SCS of that state.
This change will definitely shift the SCS standings to be based on local events, as all of those monthly/weekly events no longer have to split value with themselves during the year.
So why not limit to one endorsed residence tournament per month rather than year?
That seems like a much better way to encourage events than limiting home events to 1 per year.
Marcus
I agree that one per year seems a bit too limited. Maybe something like one per quarter would still accomplish the same goal without being overly restrictive?
Quoted from drgnlair:1. Right now I do one tournament at my house a year( 2 this year, 1 being the Oursler tournament). With my address posted and with no limits. I really could do 3 or 4. 27 games at the house.Had 20 players at one and 27 at the other.
2. What about pin golf? Since people could play 19 games at my house with 20 people. That would be a wild Base number.
3. In the league I am in now we play 4 games in a pinburgh format of 3 for win 2 for 2nd and 1 for third and 0 for 4th. with a max of 4 games being played.24 players. What would be the base for that? That would be a loser in the new format right. 8 months
1. With you posting your full address and making it public, we're likely to allow you to run as many events as you would like at your place.
2. A Pin golf tournament where 20 people play 19 games would result in a net base value of 7.60 WPPR points for that tournament.
3. 24 players, playing 4 games in an evening, for 8 months would be worth a net base value of 1.92 WPPR points for each session, or 12.00 WPPR points if submitted at the end of the season.
Quoted from Xerico:So why not limit to one endorsed residence tournament per month rather than year?
That seems like a much better way to encourage events than limiting home events to 1 per year.
One per month would allow myself and 10 of my closest friends to be able to run a total of 120 tournaments per year, and if we took the time to make sure our format graded out to 100%, it would result in 5+ WPPR points per meeting.
120 tournaments at 5+ WPPR points per meeting, means that my group of buddies just accumulated 600 WPPR points within that state's SCS without really doing anything to promote growing the player besides hanging out with eachother.
Even with 1 per residence, most communities have a group of players with multiple hosts available. Here in Chicago we have at least a 15 available hosts from our pinball league. If everyone took to hosting one endorsed event per year at their residence, the WPPR points start to accumulate quickly. Allowing 2 for each host doubles that . . . 4 for each host quadruples that, etc.
I would much rather focus that energy for organizers to run events in public venues with the hope that it helps earnings on location and grows the player base.
Quoted from ifpapinball:The one caveat to the new change, because we're allowing people to run as many events as they would like, as often as they would like.
Residences will only be allowed to host ONE endorsed tournament per year.
This is to stop someone from running a tournament at their house every single night of the year, and actually be able to count all 365 events. Even at fractions of a WPPR point per event, they could seriously impact the SCS of that state.
I would like to see this changed to 2-4 hosted tournaments. I can understand wanting to keep someone from hosting 365 events but some of the newer smaller leagues don't have enough hosts with 8+ machines to have the event occur at different residences each month for 10 months. The Phoenix APPL league has 10-11 hosts and can handle this (although I believe we have had a repeat or 2 in the past). The new Tucson league has only 2 hosts with enough games (but will soon expand to 3 or 4).
Quoted from Vengeance:The main point of the system is to stop the 5 person, basement arcade tournaments that are currently seeing the same value as a 40 person, multi-day tournament.
It's about creating quality in events and trying to move the hobby forward from a competitive standpoint.
But it seems to be at the cost of "the 30 person, basement arcade tournaments that often best most location based tournaments"
It sounds to me like the same recurring problem... in trying to make rules on what constitutes an "endorsed tournament", people keep coming up with ways to fit more things under the rules... vs something that accurately quantifies the quality of a tournament.
The Pinaholics events here are based in a home.. because its where we have a great collection of tournament worthy games that can hold up to the type of play. These events draw 50+ people from upwards of 4+ hours away and include plenty of heavy hitters (people who can make PAPA playoffs, etc). This type of event is every bit as worthy as a highly advertised event held at a bar on a Saturday night... in fact I think it's fair to say it has outdrawn just about every location tournament in the area in recent years. Yet, under the proposed rules shared so far.. it's value in ranking competitive play would be crippled because it's played in at a collector's house, vs on location.
I understand the desire to have a systematic way to qualify these things to make it objective... but I don't envy the Sharpe's task at all
Quoted from kbliznick:The Phoenix APPL league has 10-11 hosts and can handle this (although I believe we have had a repeat or 2 in the past). .
Plus a handful of those hosts have hosted a second non-league event during the year, such as a Pin-golf event or fundraiser tournament.
Reply
Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.
Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!
Donate to PinsideGreat to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!
