Do not give it too much of a thought.

These consideration are more of less only a concern in tournaments of the very highest caliber players.

I mean, it is fair to pay an interest for the sake of general knowledge. But please, use any game you like in a competitive setting.

In my experience, I've seen far more problems with pinball machines used in tournaments due to wear, malfunction, incorrect software adjustments, bullshit LEDs, burnt bulbs, bad leveling etc. than due to the games own geometry and rules.

The problem of a pinball machine for tournament use is not really that people utilise repetitive and simple shot patterns. Although it will turn out to be a boring tournament, It actually requires skill to repete shots. The problem is if playing time on a game is too long. So, adjust games to avoid that though still being a fair battlefield and you have a tournament.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that. Games with lucrative mystery awards are a poor choice for tournaments.

Just to clarify things.

Games with too imbalanced random awards, absurd multipliers, catch-up features and similar, shared progress etc. should be use with caution. Possibly avoided as multiplayer games and accepted in a single player setup only. Reason being, that the outcome is too much lead to chance and not due skillful play. Or because players benefit from other players progress.

But I guess the point I wanted to make was, that here and there (notably PAPA website and broadcasts) you will see recommendations not to use games like Earthshaker, Who Dunnit, Arabian Nights, Cirqus Voltaire, Star Wars, Elvira and Junk Yard. Which is true at the highest skill level competition. But I'd say, if you have games like these on hand and want to run a local tournament. Go ahead and use them.

Exciting times for competition pinball. Fuzzy to me what the consquences will be. But one thing is clear to me. This will bring along more tournaments.

The explosion of this thread tells me, that the ranking system is very important to a lot of players. As if I did not know this already from the scene in Denmark and how this has evolved the past years.

Josh, I really hope you do the right thing and I hope you will not be met by too much negativity and complaints from people. The fact is, that regardless of formats and calculation of the ultimate position on the chart, you guys put in a lot of work which should be appreciated.

I like the idea that tournaments will be valued more specifically based on "size" and participants (both the count and who attents). I hope you will find the correct metrics for this so we will not see organisers creep around these in ways which are ridiculous. For instance, if number of matches played will be a factor in determaining the value of a tournament, I would hate to see that we are going to play 1-ball games.

I see a little danger by the complete removal of the limitation of tourneys per year for a specific location. I would like to suggest that you make some sort of limit. To start with at least. Say 12, which enable 12 monthlies or maybe 10 monthlies and 2 larger scale events. Anything besides this will have to be "for fun". I see the danger of the new system being too much of a benefit for very local players and organisers themselves.

I respect any organiser posting here with concerns regarding their tournament potentially being devaluated somewhat by the new algorithm. But keep in mind, that the tournaments you compare yourself against may be devaluated even further. So please wait and see how this will affect everyone.

I like that the size of the format and the participants showing up will be factors in determaining how valuable the result will be regaring the ranking.

I am sorry to hear that people loose money running tournaments for the pinball joy for others. Are you having prices to speak of? Around here tournaments usually have moderate to no prices to speak of. And the interest is on the rise none the less.

I believe the number of games in longest path (and shortest path) is determained without potential tiebreakers. At least this will be an easier and less exploitable way to settle the metric.

Also, I've experienced tournaments where tiebreakers was a one ball game only. A quick'n'move-on settlement making it even more relevant to leave it out of the equation.

The shortest path metric, as suggested earlier in this thread, might actually be a better way determain the ranking value of a tournament. The longest path metric will be exploitable by having 2, 3, 4 rounds byes and leaving earlier rounds to be played as faster one game matches (as opposted to 3 game matches used later in the bracket) beefing up the value.

And speaking of best of 3 game matches. An alternative way is to make them count as 2.5 games per match.

The WPPR value of a tournament is, naturally, of most importance to the top finishers. And as they are more likely to take the shortest path through a tournament it might be the better way to determain how much that tournament is worth.

I once doodled out how many rounds a three strikes tournament was for a given number of players. I am affraid I do not remember the exact figures right now, but I believe it was 17 or 18 rounds if all players where equally good. And 11 rounds with the highest possible spread of skill. That is a pretty significant difference.

Hmmm. The pairing rule I cannot see making that much of a difference. If all players are equally good (one theoretic approach for determaining the longest path) they should more or less have the same win/loss stats.

Also, a tournament director might choose random pairing.

The games/rounds account. I know a player receive a bye in the case of an uneven number of players for a given round. But other than this isn't the number of games played = games per match times number of rounds played. Or am I missing something.

By shortest path calculation I was thinking of rounds of play and not really games per round. As for games per round I am happy with a set nominal value and not actual which is too complicated. By a nominal value of course Mr. Kerins and opponents played a four game final at PAPA last year.

My shortest path in rounds thought was concerning the use of byes in ladder systems and the use of strikes in those systems. Three strikes out/three wins you carrie to next round. Those sort of systems have a large theoretic longest path. And yet the winner of a tournament (and top finishers) are often seen indeed taking the shortest path. Winning the right to byes etc.

But then again. A double elimination system is a lot more work, and a lot longer to run, than a single elimination system of same players plus one round.

No worries. You seem to have worked this matter at all angles.

I like this a lot. Simple and easy to implement. Yet fair.

Josh, thanks a lot for turning to this thread every day to explain the new system in full perspective.

I have two questions. Both matters have been up previously but I am totally lost.

1

If you run two tournaments in the same facility, the same day and for the same players (what is now known as main and side) do they register independently. Meaning that their WPPR impact would be the same as it would were the two tournaments run at two different dates (given same turnout).

2

I got lost regarding the restrictions relating over/under 16 players, residential/commercial location, invitation only/public-open event etc. What type of events will not be endosed? And what types will under restrictions of either number of events per year or WPPR base value being divided over more events. As things are planned right now understandable.

3

I actually have an additional question. Will events still have to be annouced at least 30 days in advance? And if you have to postpond the event say a week for some reason, say 2 weeks before the new date, will that disqualify the event regarding WPPR.

I mean, is the 30 days rule really that important now. If you run things sloppy you risk a poor turnout anyway. And thus not much WPPR action either.

Not if at least 16 other players within the same State come up with the same idea

I only thing certain is, that things will change. And we will have to see the value of tournaments and the ranking in a whole new way. Not that this is a bad thing.

Thanks for the replies by the way.

I sorry but I have a follow-up question. Being that a side tournament is now recorded on its own, are the results of a main and a side tournament within the same event going to be treated as two different entries on the player resume? And in relation to the ranking being based on the 15 entries of most value.