New! Dark mode!

Browsing Pinside at night? Getting tired of all the white? Switch to dark mode using the button in the top right (or CTRL-B)!

(Topic ID: 104676)

WPPR formula change for 2015!

By ifpapinball

6 years ago

Topic Stats

  • 443 posts
  • 65 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 5 years ago by desertT1
  • Topic is favorited by 13 Pinsiders


Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    Topic Gallery

    There have been 6 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).


    You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider ifpapinball.
    Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

    #1 6 years ago

    As the landscape of competitive pinball has broadened, the IFPA is constantly investigating ways to make the World Pinball Player Rankings more accurate for how we rank players across the globe. This latest change to the formula is quite extensive, with a complete overhaul as to how the value of a tournament is calculated. These changes will be implemented starting January 1, 2015.

    Below is an overview of changes for the new 2015 formula:

    The point value for every tournament and/or league season — whether previously called Main, Side, League, Launch, Charity, Annual, Periodic, or otherwise — will be graded separately as a single, distinct event and count as one line item for a player's World Ranking resume.

    The base point value for every event will no longer have a guaranteed 25-point minimum, and instead be based on the merit of the event's # of participants in addition to the quality of the event's format.

    Events eligible for determining a player's World Ranking will be increased from the best 15 active events to the best 20 active events. Events eligible for State, European, or country Championship series ranking will remain unlimited during the affected calendar year.

    Events that are three to four years old will be worth 25% of their original value instead of 0%.

    There will be no limitations to how many events any particular location or organizer can hold, but there will be a minimum number of players required for any tournament that is listed as 'private' on the IFPA calendar in order to be endorsed by the IFPA for WPPR points.

    The changes will NOT be retroactive: the original WPPR point values for events prior to 2015, and the combination of Main/Side tourneys and Periodic tourneys into single line items for World Ranking consideration will remain unchanged.

    The Tournament Value Adjustment (TVA) mechanism will remain unchanged.

    For full detailed information on the 2015 formula, visit:

    #6 6 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    The first bullet of "Overview of Changes for 2015" says "league season", where the third bullet of "Basic Rules" says "league event". This is in regards to submission of results. Are both of those areas intended to say league event?

    I did change it to league event.

    Event being a 'submitted result' which can consist of an entire season worth of meetings, or individual meetings. It'll be up to the league to determine how they want to submit their results.

    #9 6 years ago
    Quoted from jlm33:

    Small tourneys now earn peanuts.

    Are you sure this is how you want to promote competitive play??

    If the question is do we believe there should be more value given to tournaments that draw more players . . . the answer is yes.

    If a tournament has 4 players, it shouldn't award the same base value as a tournament with 70 players. That's the stance we're taking with the 2015 system.

    With no longer combining periodic events and sharing those base value points, I actually think we've done more to promote competitive play for smaller communities. While no individual event run will be huge points, the ability for those monthly or weekly events to each count separately will add up to a ton of WPPR points for those organizers that are willing to put in the work to host something that consistently. This is especially important in the US for SCS qualifying.

    So yes . . . we're sure this is how we want to promote competitive play.

    #16 6 years ago
    Quoted from John_I:

    I hope there is some way to occasionally throw in some extra points for charity events like the Project Pinball, Python and Oursler events that were held? Seems like the best way to be fair would be to throw in an extra percentage of the total calculated points.

    The extra percentage wouldn't do much.

    For example our Chicago Project Pinball tournament would have been worth:

    20 players = 10 WPPR points
    TVA = 6.18 WPPR points
    TGP = 40% (straight up double elimination tournament)

    Total value for 1st place = 6.47 WPPR points (compared with the 2014 system where the winner got 31.18 points).

    Even giving the charity tournament a 25% premium, and you're talking 8.09 WPPR points for the winner. Ultimately the tournament value will be decided by the format and the players that show up.

    We have no interest in artificially creating a minimum base value just for the charity fundraisers, as that would go against the foundation of this new system which is 100% objective in terms of how the value is calculated.

    #26 6 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    It would be nice to have a generic template formula where I can plug in a potential tournament to see points. Understandable that the player rank/rating would just be a generic average, but something where I can plug in X # players, X #games in qualifying, X # games in playoff, field cut by 50% or more Y/N, unlimited/limited qualifying and if unlimited X #hours of play.

    Can this be done so people can get a live estimate for the number of points in general terms that an event may be worth?

    I can see it as being very useful for on the fly decisions.
    For example, hey guys today went really smooth for qualifying so we can add X # of games to playoffs and it will increase the value of this event by X IFPA points >>> by show of hands shoudl we add X games to increase the value?

    If someone wants to write it up I would be more than happy to link to it

    On the fly decisions are actually something we're not going to look at in a positive way. There will be increased scrutiny on submissions to the IFPA calendar to make sure full details of the format are available ahead of time. Based on that information we will be able to project an estimated TGP value, so players can know what to expect when they show up.

    The result submission process will then be used to verify the format that was run, and any material changes compared to what was submitted can lead to us not endorsing the tournament.

    While I can appreciate you trying to make a tournament more valuable by playing more games if things went quicker than anticipated, there may have been players that chose to not attend based on the projected TGP value of the format submitted.

    The opposite situation is far worse, if an organizer submits a tournament with a projected TGP value, and then due to time issues or 'whatever', decides to run a tournament with far fewer games played resulting in a much lower TGP value compared to what was advertised.

    #27 6 years ago
    Quoted from appeac:

    Will rating still be calculated under the new system, and will there be any more importance placed on it?

    Absolutely! The ratings calculation is the main component in our Tournament Value Adjustment (TVA) calculation. That part of the formula is not changing at all.

    #31 6 years ago
    Quoted from Troz:

    Wondering how many tournaments will change their finals format from PAPA-style to double elimination best-of-3 simply to get the grading value maxed out. PAPA style with 16 qualifiers uses 9 games max which calculates to 36% while 16 players double elimination longest path is 21 games, thus 84%! [80% max]

    Anyone know the typical time needed for a 16 player double elimination best-of-3 tournament? For PAPA style I typically schedule between 1.5-2 hours per round, leaning towards 6 hours for 16 players.

    It will be interesting to see how this works out. I think the biggest variable between the formats is the number of games available.

    If you only have 4 machines available, then PAPA style will probably be faster than Head-to-Head where you can't start all the matches at the same time. You then run into the waiting game for head-to-head matchups, where PAPA style game selection is done in a way which keeps the tournament moving at a faster pace.

    I budget 2 hours per PAPA round (assuming 3 games). For double elimination best-of-3 I will typically see an 8 player tournament take roughly the same amount of time (6 hours total). Again it depends on how many machines are available, and what the rules are on waiting for machine choice.

    #32 6 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Hence why I can see the need to undershoot >> i.e. "At least 3 games will be played for playoffs, but if time allows this may be increased to 4"

    I would also like the generic formula as a way to play with differnet ideas and see what grades out to what.

    Both players and tournament directors will need to develop and make chioce on what sort of event to run and what events are worth their time to attend. As a director I will want to maximize attendance for many events and need to find out a good way to do that.

    When in doubt, just email me.

    I've probably calculated out 200+ example tournaments for organizers looking at how different choices impact their value. It's realllllly easy for me to do quickly, and it will also help you understand how the formula works seeing me explain how that value comes together based on the decisions you are making.

    #33 6 years ago
    Quoted from John_I:

    That brings up a question. I see a lot of tournaments where there might be 40 or 50 people who entered but if you look closely only 25-30 actually played a significant amount of games. For instance a local tournament held at a large show gave a free three-game entry to VIP ticket buyers who paid for all three days in advance. That could potentially lead to a lot of players only playing three games and out. At a half a point per person, an extra ten or twenty people that are one and done will add up to a lot of bogus points. Hopefully there is some control factor in there for culling the players that did not at least post scores on the minimum number of games to qualify?

    We have no interest in gauging the perceived effort of a player to attempt to qualify. Although PEP (Perceived Effort Percentage) does have a nice ring to it!

    We only care if someone actually competed at all. If this means that more shows will give out free tickets into the tournament in the hopes of getting a bunch of people to try ONE ENTRY, then bully for that tournament, and perhaps that could hook a few new players to continuing to try more.

    The only thing we won't look highly on is someone artificially adding players who weren't in attendance or didn't actually compete at all as a way to inflate the base value of the event.

    #60 6 years ago
    Quoted from Winball_Pizard:

    I think sticking to the system is a great idea but, this is going to be really bad for the charities without offering something else to attract players. So far, the charity events in our area have been our only chance at having another full value tournament at our main location Pinballz because the annual location rule is waived.

    Every tournament created now has the chance at earning 'full value', so that limitation of the charity event being the only way Pinballz could run a second 'full value' tournament is no longer something they have to worry about.

    Quoted from Winball_Pizard:

    Maybe I'm a cold hearted, selfish, opportunistic bastard but, those 25 WPPRs make up a big part of the reason I played the charity events in the first place *going to hell emoticon*

    The thing people are going to have to get used to is keeping this "25 WPPRs" in perspective. Previously every tournament got this at a minimum, and now a tournament with 25 base WPPR's represents a tournament with 50 players, and 100% TGP.

    It's going to be tough for any tournament worth less than 25 points to not feel ripped off, but we'll fight through it. To keep things in perspective, the average player count of the 2000 events played over the last year was 20 players, which really makes an 'average' tournament base value worth 10. If you're clocking in at anything more than 10 points for your event, you are 'better than average'.

    We have thoroughly enjoyed being able to use the WPPR system to help motivate people to raise money for various charities (over $60,000 in 2014 - with 3 more fundraisers left to go), but let me make it crystal clear:

    The primary function of the WPPR system is to rank pinball players as accurately as possible. The ability for WPPR points to help increase the fundraising capabilities of these various campaigns is definitely secondary, and in no way will we make any arbitrary inflation decisions that would compromise the integrity of our primary function.

    If this new system results in the failure to raise any money for charity next year, we'll be able to see that. If this results in the number of tournaments and players competing to decrease, we'll see that too.

    Here's the 2014 (so far) numbers to beat for next year:

    9841 total players competing (already being 2013's total of 9833)
    1542 total events (2013's total was 1604)

    Every year both of these numbers have increased, so time will tell if we unlocked pandora's box to stopping this growth with the new system.

    #63 6 years ago
    Quoted from Frax:

    I actually had a longish post typed up yesterday before you had addressed the charity thing directly where I basically asked "Is the primary function of IFPA charity work or ranking pinball" lol. Didn't bother posting it after the earlier statement.

    Yeah that's a popular question we've gotten this year (I've asked myself that same question lol).

    The second most popular question we get is whether our primary function is WPPR Socialism, and letting any crappy tournament out there with a half dozen players get 25 points like all the others.

    I feel like we're addressing both of these issues with WPPR v5.0 in a way that will lead to a more accurate rankings system.

    We also know full well that there is a large group of players that love we are addressing these issues, and a large group of players that hates we are addressing these issues.

    #67 6 years ago
    Quoted from tamoore:

    Hey now. DON'T GENERALIZE!

    All tournaments are crappy. Not just small ones.

    We're attacking it from both ends!

    A 6 player tournament with the best format ever created (100% TGP) would yield a base value of 3 WPPR points.

    A 500 player tournament with the worst format ever created (play one game - so 4% TGP) would yield a base value of 1.28 WPPR points.

    #72 6 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    I have a feeling everything will even out, just a lot less points.

    That's my feeling as well. Once people adjust to the new normal of 10-15 points for a tournament being 'pretty good' by comparison to other events, I think the motivation to run events at those point values will become more meaningful.

    It's really easy to see 10 points today, and just say F-This, that's a 60% decrease compared to last year. That thought process should fade over time as more and more results get submitted under the new system (hopefully).

    #75 6 years ago
    Quoted from John_I:

    10 is the new 25.

    I may have to make a new WPPR t-shirt to help start getting players and organizers to understand that.

    Funny enough we were 'THIS CLOSE' in 2010 to changing the minimum base value from 25 to 10 just as one of our arbitrary changes for that year.

    #76 6 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    I am assuming there will still be the 30 days rule unless it is a "Private" tournament.

    The 30 day rule actually exists for 'private' tournaments as well.

    Our IFPA Calendar submission process is all online now through our website, and organizers will notice if they try to submit a date that is less than 30 days away, it won't let you select that date to submit.

    #78 6 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    I am assuming submission of events will change as well.
    Type of Tournament
    Number of games

    It's already built into the results submission module on our site:

    Below the area where organizers submit the actual results (player names and finishing positions), there's a Comments box that is open. Organizers will have to use that area to explain in as much detail as possible the format of the event, and we'll be able to assign the TGP value when we approve those results.

    There's a similar 'information' box in the Calendar Submission module, and we expect organizers to have that information together BEFORE they submit to the calendar. We get a ton of "Format TBD", which is fine for now, but won't fly for any events we see listed for 2015.

    By the time the results submission comes around, it should be more of a confirmation of the format that was submitted to the calendar, so we'll be prepped on figuring out what the TGP value is relatively quickly and easily.

    #82 6 years ago
    Quoted from Winball_Pizard:

    Perhaps the winners of charity tournaments can be entered in a drawing for a new Stern machine or have air/hotel expenses covered to a circuit event within reason. Some incentive needs to draw players to charity events. Obviously I have no confidence in the kindness and generosity of others lol *still going to hell emoticon*

    GREAT idea!

    I've been equally skeptical of how the charity campaigns will go next year, knowing full well the number of people there for the WPPR's far outnumbered the people that were there for charitable purposes.

    This kind of idea would allow us to give some added benefits to these campaigns without messing with the integrity of the new formula . . . I dig it.

    #86 6 years ago
    Quoted from Flamethrower:

    Do games played in a qualifying round count if they are used to sort players into divisions for the remainder of the event? For example, if I had a 40 player tournament and used a qualifying round to break people into A and B divisions, with players in A division competing for spots 1-20 based on their performance the rest of the day and players in B division competing for spots 21-40 based on their performance the rest of the day, how would that be considered? It eliminates half the field from eligibility to win the tournament, but not from the competition entirely. So are those meaningful games or would that be considered seeding?

    We do look at it from the perspective of being able to win the tournament, so those games would count towards the TGP calculation in your example.

    The best example of this is Pinburgh, where 20 games are played and then the field is divided up into divisions. No players are actually 'eliminated' from the tournament, but only 25% of the field is now actually still eligible to win the tournament, so those 20 games are added to the TGP total.

    What we're trying to avoid is something where you have 32 players that show up, and the organizer says "Okay everyone, let's each play these 5 games, 5 times each. That will get our TGP to 100% and we'll use those results to then start the 32 player elimination bracket." That would be an example of 'seeding' and those 25 games would not be counted in the TGP calculation.

    #89 6 years ago
    Quoted from pinballer0415:

    So starting in 2015, will everyone's points start at 0? I am very new to competitive pinball and wanted to increase my state and national ranking. Have played in two tournaments so far of around 30 people each and have finished top 5 both times. With point totals of each tournament going down, I feel like it will be harder for me to increase my ranking if other player's points from the last 3-4 years are inflating their ranking.

    For example: Player A and B played in similar tournaments with similar point distributions; however, Player A did this in 2014, but Player B got his points in 2015. Player A's average place of finish is 6th place scoring him 6 points an event for a total of 18 points. Player B's average place of finish is 4rd; however, due to the new rules, this only nets him 5 points an event for a total of 15 points.

    Even though Player B finished better, he or she has less points under the new system.

    I am all in for the new system and how it will rank people, but I feel like it will take 3-4 years before everyone is on the same base level. So someone like me who is new to competition and doesn't have points built up over the years seems to be screwed for the next few years due to the higher point values from previous years

    For the SCS it will reset, so all players will start from 0 on 1/1/15.

    For the World Ranking it will not. The WPPR points used for your world ranking will continue to decay over time like it does now, lowering the value of all the events that were given under the old rules.

    There are some things about the new system that are actually advantageous to the old system, and this mostly has to do with periodic events (weekly/monthly). Before we would simply divide up those 25 base points over however many tournaments were held, so for monthlies it was an automatic 25/12, for weeklies it was an automatic 25/52.

    Now that monthlies and weeklies no longer exist, each of those tournaments actually have the opportunity to be worth far more under the new system. It won't be a surprise to me if some of these weekly tournaments that were previously worth 0.5 WPPR points now find themselves worth 10-12 WPPR points each and every week.

    Locally to you, CP Pinball comes to mind. In the past all of the events they ran had to share the 25 base points . . . and now Chuck is free to run 100 tournaments next year if he so chooses, and each of them can grade out to whatever value it earns. No longer will they be penalized by having to divide out points between multiple events.

    #92 6 years ago
    Quoted from pinballer0415:

    How are side tournament values going to be determined? Seems like they are worth a very large value with the current system.

    There is no longer the distinction of a 'side tournament' (another term we're going to have to make a t-shirt to help remove from the lingo)

    Events are welcome to run multiple tournaments at their event . . . whether that be 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 it's up the them. Each one of them will be graded individually and separately using the same new formula.

    Most events that previously maximized their base value would run a Main + Side tournament, which would now be looked at as simply running TWO individual tournaments.

    #93 6 years ago

    Hilton what you laid out is something I expect to see happen often. You are exactly right that lumping multiple months in together now allows you leverage all of those games played into increasing the TGP value. I wouldn't be shocked if we see weeklies turn into monthlies including a 'monthly final', or monthlies turning into quarterlies including a 'quarterly final' the way you laid out your Option 2.

    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Option 1:
    Report Monthly
    Each month approximately 20 people. Qualifying is 4 games and more than 50% split of field for playoffs. Playoffs is 2 games. This would equal ??? WPPR

    20 players = 10 base points [0.5 points per player]
    4 qualifying games + 2 playoff games = 24% TGP [4% per meaningful game played]
    Net Base Value = 2.4 WPPR points [10 base points * 24%]

    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Report every other month.
    Approximately 30 unique players every 2 months. Each month would be the same as above (4 games for qualifying, cut the field by more than 50%, 2 games for playoff)
    Addition of a 4 game playoff for top combined monthly top people. This would mean the total players for this reporting structure would be 30 people and (6+6+4) 16 games to victory with a more than 50% cut in the field. This would equal ??? WPPR

    You got this calculation exactly right . . .

    30 people = 15 base points [0.5 points per player]
    16 games to victory = 64% TGP [4% per meaningful game played]
    Net Base Value = 9.6 WPPR points [15 base points * 64%]

    #96 6 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    So if I put in 2015 Pooleys as monthlys and Report each month for Jan to June but then the players decide to have a bigger scoring event can I just update the website and start reporting every other month?

    For us, you would simply have to email me an updated paragraph to put in our details, explaining how June and July will be combined into a double-month, and then I can update those calendar entries for June and July with those details.

    Do the same on your website, and we'll be good to go for reporting it that way.

    What you couldn't do is decide after the June event is done that all the players voted and wanted to combine it July. That decision would have to be made in advance.

    #97 6 years ago
    Quoted from John_I:

    So someone could run a tournament like this only instead of counting the best score on each game the players get to count their two best scores and throw away the worst. That way the qualifying would include up to 20 meaningful scores for each player. Eliminate at least 50% and follow that with a finals that includes at least 5 possible games and you have 100%. Am I wrong?

    This is exactly right, and another thing I think we'll see more of.

    If you are giving players 10 opportunities on a game, and only counting their best score, you are only utilizing 1 data point for TGP purposes . . . yet you're spending all that time and effort throwing 90% of that good data away.

    Counting all 10 scores would require the same amount of effort from the organizer, but would increase the TGP from 4% to 40%.

    You are exactly right with the Fraser Valley Flipout that if the top two scores were used for qualifying instead of just their best, that would have been 20 meaningful games added to the TGP value, plus the finals games would have taken them over the top to grade out at 100%.

    By only taking the best score, the tournament would have only graded out to 76% (10 qualifying games played + 9 for finals).

    Finding ways to utilize more data is where I think we'll see people try to maximize their TGP without needing to spend any additional effort with the organization part of the event.

    #99 6 years ago

    Many leagues run seasons that cross over years. We base things off of the results submission date. If that happens to include play from the previous calendar year, we're not concerned about that.

    #119 6 years ago
    Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

    But should stuff like SCS count for next years points? And do you have to count all games played just to get in?

    seems very odd that playoffs count for next year over all rankings.

    What other sports do that?

    We obviously think it should, however we don't feel there will be a material impact on the standings because of it. This will only be neutered more, with WPPR v5.0 and the SCS being only 16 players. The winner stands to earn far fewer points this upcoming year compared to last year.

    Other sports definitely include 'prior year play' in determining who is eligible to participate in the tournament. I look at the Masters in Golf, where any player that has previously won the Masters gets an invite. Other Major Champions of the last 5 years (rolling period) also get an invite, current Amateur Champions of the previous year get an invite, the top 50 ranked players (which is based on a rolling period of results), and a bunch more ways for players to get in that don't include play from the current calendar year.

    I don't believe we'll see anyone earn one of the 16 SCS spots in a given state strictly due to their performance at the State Championship from the this year. If that actually ends up happening, and it's on my list to go through and check to see if it does happen, we'll reconsider it for the future.

    #121 6 years ago
    Quoted from jlm33:

    Tournament Grading Percentage (TGP) should be adjusted depending on the number of players.

    You probably not need the same number of meaningful games to have a good tourney involving 16 players or 160 players. The need for 25 meaningful games to score 100% of the value of a 16 player-tourney is overkill and not realistic. I guess that with 12 games you would already get an accurate hierarchy based on skill.

    So in the end, this grading system will have a double negative impact on points for "small" (say 16-30 players) tourneys. No only will you score less points, but TGP will act as a further penalty with a low multiplier (<<1).

    Not a good way to promote pinball in pinball deserts. We will never get good players visiting us with the prospect of scoring 3 points...

    With an already confusing enough formula, having a different TGP calculation based on various different levels of competitors wasn't something I personally wanted to implement.

    The fact that we are leaving the power of the TGP in the organizers hands makes us okay with this decision. Every single tournament will have the chance to grade out at 100%, if that organizer is willing to put in the time and effort to play enough games of pinball to make that happen.

    If motivating groups of players to avoid a 'penalty' as you call it, by telling them to PLAY MORE PINBALL, that's something I can definitely live with.

    #122 6 years ago
    Quoted from frg:

    How about this setup...
    Highscore Tournament with 7 machines. Each machine can be played three times - all results count. That means the TGP would be 7 *3*4% = 84%?


    Quoted from frg:

    Or same Tournament 4 DMDs, 3 early Solid States... DMDs can be play two times, eSSs can be played 5 times - all results count.
    That means the TGP would be (4 *2 + 3*5 )* 4% = 23*4% = 92%?

    Correct again!

    Quoted from frg:

    So a lot of tournaments will come up counting not only the best score, but also the second best, the third best, etc. - in the described setup with 7 machines the TGP for highest score only would only be 28%

    Creative and well thought or exploitation and unfair?
    Actually if it fits with rules, there is no discussion... ???

    To me this is a perfect way of playing within the rules of the system. Utilizing all of those points of data in helping to determine the champion will yield a more skillful result compared to utilizing 1/5th of that data. That's what TGP is all about. The more pieces of data used to determine who's the best, the more meaningful the result.

    #123 6 years ago
    Quoted from Frax:

    Let me tell ya'll how much fun it's going to be to get 25 people to submit three scores on spiderman each, at a location I have no control over how tough the game is set up.

    40 hour tournament, anyone? Just my three games alone would likely take over 2 hours.

    More likely, I will just make people play 6 games of stern Star Trek. =P

    40 hour tournament anyone is totally right.

    It's very easy for people to SAY that they will just play enough games to grade out to 100%, and another thing to actually DO that.

    I can't see too many players showing up month after month to Gameworks if I suddenly tell them we're going to be there from 7pm - 5am to make sure we get all of our games in.

    #124 6 years ago
    Quoted from Frax:

    The other location we use, they have basically given us carte blanche, but it's in a movie theatre, so they're usually set up harder than the other place (mostly redemption kiddie stuff..) and there's no VERY long ball time games like spiderman, BDK, or Elvis there. Apparently with the removal of restrictions I could just use the movie theatre all the time, but I prefer to split the money between the two. Both the movie theatre op and the location owner for the other place are awesome guys, and our local arcade selection would be non-existant without those guys!

    This was a big factor in the WPPR v5.0 change, and really unleashing that limitation of people getting to run ONE annual event at a location per year.

    I know in Portland because of our current rules, they had to play at locations that were in really rough shape with respect to the condition of the games because they used up all the 'good' locations already. You end up not being able to help the 'good operators' more by running more events there, and end up almost enabling the bad operators to not maintain their games because the players will be showing up anyway.

    With the openness of the new system, I'm hoping we'll see operators up their game to motivate the players to choose their location when planning an event. I know the Portland player base is already having discussions on where they plan on holding their weekly tournaments next year, and focusing on the best places to play in town.

    #127 6 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Yes, i am fearful of many events becoming less fun while people try to maximize event %.

    Hopefully organizers will be creative but remember that F U N is the m,ost importnat thing.

    I'm hoping there will be a balance here, because besides TGP there is also the player count which is equally important.

    If you don't create an event that is fun, I don't care how high your TGP is, players won't keep showing up to the tournament and your value will be nuked anyway.

    This is highly dependent on the player base, but I can't imagine trying to milk out a 100% TGP event every single week with the player base in Chicago. We just don't have enough people that have enough free time to commit to playing that much pinball that often. Having a 4 player event worth 100% TGP is still only 2 points. Having a 30 player event worth 50% TGP is worth nearly 4X that.

    Instead we'll work on maybe turning monthlies into quarterlies, or finding other ways to maximize TGP while making sure players stay interested in competing.

    #128 6 years ago
    Quoted from pinlynx:

    Who's the better player, the one who played 3 times and put up a great score or the person who played 15 times and had a "lucky" game to score more than the first player?

    The more attempts given, the more attempts you give players to execute their skill.

    If I had to put Keith Elwin up against Player X, and they both got 3 attempts to put up a great score, or both got 15 attempts to put up a great score, I would think that Keith would win either way . . . but would have a better chance to win given more opportunities to execute his skill over Player X.

    The fact that there is the 'luck' factor with respect to ONLY taking the top score, is exactly why either of these scenarios would only count as ONE GAME for TGP purposes.

    A better comparison would be:

    Keith plays 15 games - Total the score of those 15 games
    Player X plays 15 games - Total the score of those 15 games

    Who's more likely to finish with the higher score?

    To us that's now utilize 15 points of data, which increase the TGP to 60% (up from 4% only counting the high score).

    #129 6 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Did they earn a spot that they would not have without the SCS. If so then the system is favoring legacy players over new players since thos ethat just started competing mid way through even 2013 missed the real shot at playing in the 2013 SCS and hence those possible points in their 2014 calculation.

    SCS will also surely impact final qualifying position which does have an impact on the overall competion.

    I personally would like to see the SCS not award points for the future years SCS calculations and I am a person that benefitted from it this year since I played in WI 2013 SCS.

    With only 4 players having earned more than 3 WPPR points from last year's Wisconsin SCS, you're really only talking about 3-4 guys that have any sort of real advantage as a 'legacy' player. Those players were Jason Werdrick, Chris Basler, Mike Sievert and Ken Kulig.

    If we remove the SCS results, here's what the standings would look like right now:

    Jason Werdrick - would drop from 5th to 10th
    Chris Basler - would drop from 9th to 23rd! (gotta keep an eye on this)
    Mike Sievert - would drop from 4th to 7th
    Ken Kulig - would drop from 6th to 7th

    Even yourself would only drop from 8th to 10th.

    We can argue how important seeding is for the actual State Championship, but judging by the various different seeds of who advanced to Nationals, I would say the most skilled players still performed the best regardless of their actual seed entering the State Championship.

    I'll have to ping Basler and see if he has any intention of traveling up to Wisconsin again in February. He could be the ONE GUY that makes us remove including SCS results going forward for future years.

    #130 6 years ago
    Quoted from noahpdavis:

    I wonder if limited buy in HERB's will start taking that approach?

    As an organizer I've done plenty of self WPPR exploitation analysis, and the first thing that popped into my head was the "HERB^X" format.

    Figure out how many tournament games you have to play with, and make X equal whatever it needs to equal in order to grade out to 100% TGP.

    With everyone playing games dozens of times in most pump-n-dumps, it allows you to simply use more data without adding any effort to the organization of the tournament.

    Whether you end up with a sum of your best 5 scores, or allow your best 5 individual scores to count (such that you earn 100,99,98,97 and 96 points on a particular machine), I can see both ways happening in 2015.

    #133 6 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    My general feeling is that SCS is ranking for events within the calander year and I would prefer to keep it solely impacted by thing that happen within the actual year (i.e. not a previous years qualifying to play an event in the future year).

    Technically our written rules state that every IFPA endorsed tournament held within state lines during 2014 are counted in the 2014 standings, full stop . . . and that does include the previous year's final.

    We'll be following where players like Basler and Werdrick end up, as well as what happens in the other states.

    I'll say that if we only see that it's seeding that is being jumbled, but that all 16 players would have been the same either way, we probably wouldn't make the change.

    #141 6 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Side question, is there a max that an event can bank out at?

    I think I missed that?

    The max is 64+ players for 32 points.
    TVA max is 75 points.
    TGP max is 100%

    So for a non-Major, the max is 107 WPPR points for the winner of any single event that can be created.

    #142 6 years ago
    Quoted from John_I:

    Not sure why the address has to be posted? When I did my big event at the house this year it was openly advertised in the local Florida Pinball Forum, but address was only available via email to those with confirmed RSVP. Posting someone's home address on the IFPA site seems useless.

    This is to prevent small groups of players from running an event every night out of their house, and racking up points to increase their SCS standing.

    We give organizers an option for 'private' events:

    1) List your address publicly so anyone can show up, and then you aren't held to the 16 player minimum
    2) Don't list your address publicly, and you are held to a 16 player minimum for endorsement

    Just within my family I can hold a nightly tournament with 8 people no problem, and rack up 4 WPPR points a night in the privacy of my own basement. 365 times a year, and I can get 1460 WPPR points towards my Illinois SCS.

    This kind of exploitation we're looking to avoid, and putting in the player minimum will help limit the chances of it happening. As the number of players increase, the harder it is to get that many people to show up consistently night after night.

    #144 6 years ago
    Quoted from Troz:

    One of my biggest peeves with the unlimited HERB/Best-Game system is the potential for long lines. It's the reason I had for championing more games in the bank and requiring fewer games than available to be played. CAX was a nightmare this year with 10-12 people per queue/30-60+ minute waits for games. Adding in "HERB^x" would've been an absolute disaster, even if it was limited qualifying.

    We were debating what to do for INDISC 2015, considering we're probably the first large tournament to fall under the new formula. Bob brought up this idea of taking the best two scores from each game which I disagreed with. As if lines didn't get long enough, we'd now be requiring people to continue playing to acquire two <b>good</b> scores per game and pour even more money into the pot. Yes, most are already replaying games but only because they haven't reached the score they want yet. Add in that second (or third) requirement and I think it's a recipe for trouble.

    For INDISC, seems like we might make some adjustments to the finals although still undetermined at this point. Could be 4 games per round with PAPA scoring, could be double elimination, could be 3 strikes, or we could say screw it all and keep our existing structure for 76% (my current vote).

    It's definitely going to be an interesting balancing act.

    Taking the extreme of making someone play a game 15 times, that could lead to a majority of the players competing to say F-THIS (for both financial and time burdens), and suddenly to get your tournament to grade out to 100% TGP, you've just reduced your field of competitors from 90 to 30.

    A 30 player field with 100% TGP is 15 points.

    A 90 player field with a 76% TGP is 24.32 points.

    Ultimately the players are going to drive the bus here. Organizers may be quick to just make some simple changes (on paper) to make the tournament more valuable, but without the support of all those players to continue choosing to participate, it's not going to matter.

    #146 6 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Just to be clear, we can run a public event at our private home but have a requirement for pregistration and then address is provided, correct?

    I don't care to put my address out oon the web but am OK if someone registers to play and provides me their name/contact info for my records first then send them the address.

    that is still a public event, correct?

    It comes down to the actual calendar submission entry:

    Every tournament is required to put in a full address, but you can click the box that says "This Location is Private".

    By clicking that, we flag the event that it's only endorsed if the 16 player minimum is met.

    The registration process of having people contact you to get the actual address of the event is mandatory even for 'Private' events.

    You can't have an event where players aren't allowed to find out where to play by contacting the organizer. That kind of event wouldn't be endorsed regardless of the number of players that show up.

    Your example would be exactly what we consider a 'Private' event, because the full address wouldn't be listed publicly on the site, but players would be able to contact you to get that information.

    #154 6 years ago

    Remember that the prize pool has no impact on the WPPR value of the tournament.

    You could run a pump-and-dump without the dump, and simply let people play as many entries as they want for free, or charge $1 a game instead of 3 for $10, and it's all the same to us with respect to WPPR points.

    Whether it is the prize pool itself rather than the WPPR's available that is the draw for the players to show up and compete is a whole other argument.

    #186 6 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    The idea is that I will select 4-6 bars with a total of 20ish games to be played. These bars will be in MKE and MSN and Appleton areas. Players will need to preregister and get a premade score tracking sheet for each game. Players are allowed unlimited attempts for a 2-3 week period. In order to qualify 20 games out of the 30ish available will have to be played. Players document highscores by taking a picture of each game score with their player ID tag/# in the photo also. They will then email me an electronic copy with each score populated and the corresponding photos for their highest score on each game to verify. The can only submit 20 scores in total.

    I will then tally all scores entered and top X will qualify for playoffs which will be for a prestated upcoming weekend.

    thoughts? (Besides telling me I am crazy; Yes I know logistically this will be a ton of work and I will need to coordinate with a tons of operators/bars/game techs in advance to ensure state of game is maintained as best possible)

    Assuming "top X" cuts the field by at least 50% for the playoffs, then this would grade out at 100% no problem. You would have your 20+ games for 80%, plus unlimited qualifying opportunties for 20+ hours for the other 20%.

    If your playoffs include more than half the field, then you would only be able to the data from the playoffs with respect to the TGP calculation.

    #192 6 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    thanks and opinion on the actual idea?

    fun or stupid?

    Sounds fun to me!

    I think making players play with at least one other person might be something you would want to look into, just to avoid potential cheating . . . but I probably wouldn't worry about that until you get a sense that it might be.

    #202 6 years ago
    Quoted from LOTR_breath:

    Hi Josh. I was wondering about the 20 best vs. 15 best. I am assuming that on Jan. 1st the best 5 results you have in your "active, but not used" section will automatically move up into your " following tournaments are used in this players rankings" section. Is that correct?

    That's correct! (and one of the biggest reasons why we didn't expand past 20 events for the launch of WPPR v5.0)

    #204 6 years ago
    Quoted from Frax:

    Gonna be some epic inflation of the top 100 with that.. didn't think about it until now..

    I'm going to gain 7.67 points, currently ranked 215th..

    Guy in 100th stands to gain about 13.93 points..

    Keith Elwin will gain....... 187 points.


    Yup yup . . . we analyzed the change in positions for the top 50, and surprisingly there's not much movement at all besides a few guys that weren't as deep with having some decent results in reserve outside of their top 15.

    Keith gains 187 and will remain in 1st.
    Jorian gains 162.91 and will drop down to 3rd.
    Zach gain 190.03 and will move from 3rd to 2nd.
    Daniele gains 183.32 and will stay in 4th.

    #209 6 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    so now we finally see the whole reason for the change

    Busted AGAIN!

    For a while the changes we made were to benefit me reaching #1, but we've now put all of our resources towards the much better (and better looking) Sharpe brother.

    #211 6 years ago
    Quoted from LOTR_breath:

    Now Trent #2 will merge partially with the real Trent! He needs to stay out of that transporter......

    Wow, forgot about that! The ramifications of how this impacts Trent #2, 3 and 4 is INSANE!

    Reminds me of Timecop . . .

    Same matter can't occupy the same space

    #224 6 years ago
    Quoted from pascal-pinball:

    that's right !!!

    I organize the national pinball competion in Belgium (BFC) for 6 years. We are limited in space and time.
    A winner got around 30 point, In 2015 it will be 3.8 points.
    I am sure that 50% of the players won't come anymore...
    End of 2015 we can stop with our competition...

    I think this will go into the wrong direction.

    The issue is your space and time limitation. With that comes the difficulty in creating more value through player count and a high TGP.

    Having a tournament with 24 players that runs for 6 hours is very similar in size and scope of many of the monthly tournaments here in the US, so it will now grade out in the exact same way.

    People that are interested will find ways to make the new system work for them, but it will require effort.

    It's possible to include the value of all the BFC tournaments together as part of a league, and simply submit the results at the end of the year. This would allow your TGP to add up over time, and you could include all the players that participated in any of the tournaments.

    I am personally evaluating something like that for our Gameworks tournaments, and submitting results quarterly or semi-annually instead of monthly to increase the value of each submission.

    #225 6 years ago
    Quoted from fna_royam:

    I have a question about a format that is based off of the gameshow "name that tune". How it would work ( whether it's a 3 strike brakelope or double elimination) is that player A is matched against Player B on a best of 3 on 3 different games. For Game one player A sets a score ( say 2 billion on AFM) and player B has the option of playing the game to get that score or deferring to player A and making player A play the game to get the score. For Game two Player B sets a score and player A has the option of playing the game to get the score or deferring to player B to achieve the score he set. If it's tied after 2 games Player A and Player B would play the 3rd game head to head. Would this be allowed to be considered 3 games played for TGP. The knock against it obviously is that game one and game two would be single player games but their is the head to head competition aspect and strategy involved on how high, or how low, you set the score.

    I would consider that match 3 games played for TGP. Very interesting format for sure . . . sounds like fun. There would be some strategy in putting up a 'decent' game, but not making it too difficult on yourself if you had to beat your score on the next game.

    The other format with similar non-playing situations is Texas Hold Em formats where you are betting ball to ball. Regardless of players folding or not, those games played count towards the TGP value.

    #226 6 years ago
    Quoted from jlm33:

    Exactly. That's a disaster for those living in a pinball desert. It was hard enough to motivate players living far away to come... now it's simply Mission: Impossible.

    For those pinball deserts, unfortunately it's a sacrifice we have to make in order to have a rankings system that will be far more accurate.

    As long as you have ONE MACHINE available, you have the ability to create a 100% TGP tournament.

    As long as there are 64 players that live in the surrounding area you have the opportunity to convince them to play pinball and create a tournament with 32 base points.

    How that happens is in the hands of the organizers.

    #230 6 years ago
    Quoted from soren:

    I assume this tournament is a one day all dayer event likewise many of the tournaments elsewhere in Europe. So the WPPR value of your event will likely be similar to that of other events that players alternatively can choose to play at.

    This is by far the one thing that most people seem to not notice.

    Comparing a tournaments value in 2014 to the same tournament in 2015 isn't nearly as important of an exercise as comparing the tournament in 2015 to the other tournaments in the area in 2015.

    Like I had mentioned previously, MOST events will no longer be scoring 25-30 points as was the norm for the past 8 years. The average player count that we've seen for events is 20 players, which equates to a maximum base value of 10 WPPR points for a 100% TGP event.

    10 is the new 25!

    #231 6 years ago
    Quoted from soren:

    An organiser may, in WPPRv5, boost the value of the tournament by altering to an 8 in A/40 in B finals. With double elimination/best of three in A. And single elimination/one game per round in B.

    Or have the top 2 advance in A to play one best-of-25 match, and have the other 38 players advance to the B finals

    #236 6 years ago
    Quoted from Excalabur:

    Query: if 10 is the new 25, why not make it 25?

    The current changeover will make legacy events really important for a few years for most players, which is a Bad Thing. Why not just multiply all the new numbers by 2.5, and have the events that are currently huge grade out to a larger number?

    There's no absolute value of a WPPR point, and this impacts far fewer players in a negative way. Yes, compared to other events on the calendar next year 10 points is average: but a lot of people have some numbers from 25 point events on their resume already. This change is especially bad for the high-volume small-event players, who won't see next year's events on their resume for quite some time.

    Yes, it means that the Elwins, Sharpes, and Lefkoffs of the world will have their rankings impacted a lot by next years Big Events, but there's way fewer of them than there are people in the 100-10000 range...

    This would severely limit the sale of "10 is the new 25" t-shirts!

    Seriously, the bigger issue is how we treat what we previously considered 'periodic events'. Previously these weekly tournaments were worth 0.5 WPPR points per week, and counted for 1 event on a player's resume.

    Now these weekly tournaments are simply 'tournaments' and have the ability to be worth anything. They will also fill up a player's resume quickly week after week. If we artificially inflate all tournaments, this will hugely impact the weekly/monthly events the most.

    Many of these tournaments will hand out 10 points a week, and to inflate them to 25 points a week you start really impacting the world rankings with results that I would consider far less impressive compared to those 'good' events that were 25 points last year.

    Those players in the 100-10000 range that play mostly small, local, weekly/monthly stuff already stand the most to gain under this new system. They will be filling up their resume quickly with events worth far more than they were previously worth.

    #238 6 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    As far as leagues go....if we submit monthly, will league dates need to be put on the IFPA calendar?

    If you submit monthly, and there's an ability for new players to join each and every month because there's no carryover, then I would put it on the calendar. At that point IMO it's not really a 'league' the way I personally look at them, but rather a monthly tournament.

    For us, not putting league dates on the IFPA calendar was because most leagues have a season made up of multiple meetings where there is a requirement to be a member at the start of the season. Having one of the meetings on the IFPA calendar would only confuse non-members into thinking they could show up and play, when really they couldn't.

    #240 6 years ago
    Quoted from appeac:

    In the sample spreadsheet, there is a "grand slam" multiplier used in the 2015 formula. Is there a reason certain tournaments are still getting a boost? Why does that not fall under the "all tournaments will be graded objectively" rule?

    If the 100 best players in the world show up to Billy Bob's Tournament and that same exact group of players show up to the PAPA World Championships, assuming the formats were identical, the prestige of what PAPA is, as one of the sports Major Championships makes it a 'more important' event with respect to the world rankings (IMO of course).

    We this a lot with the Pre-IFPA, Pre-Pinburgh and Pre-PAPA tournaments. There is a level of prestige with the Major Championships that we feel should provide additional value compared to the Pre-events leading up to the Major (all other things being equal).

    We see this in the Official World Golf Rankings as well:

    The 4 Majors, Masters Tournament, U.S. Open Championship, The Open Championship and US PGA Championship are rated separately and are awarded 100 1st place points. All players who complete all 4 rounds of a Major Championship are awarded Ranking Points to reflect the higher quality of the events.

    #244 6 years ago
    Quoted from jlm33:

    Don't tell me you need to play 25 games for the winner to be determined among 20 players.
    A decent tourney with 20 players will probably require far less than 25 games.
    From our experience, between 8 and 16 games.

    You don't need 25 games for the winner to be determined among 20 players. You only need ONE GAME for that to be determined. The question is the quality value of that determination.

    Clearly as DNO said, the biggest losers in the new system are those that ran small player count, simple format tournaments (often with an associated Side Tournament), and saw 37.5 points for that no matter what the effort.

    It's up to the organizer how many games they wish to play, and they are in complete control over the value of their tournament. They can choose to make the quality of their events better, focus on ways to try and get more players to participate, or simply stop running their events altogether if the new WPPR scoring upsets them that much.

    For those that run into time/space/player limitations, unfortunately that's a problem that organizers will have to find a way to overcome under the new system.

    1 week later
    #246 6 years ago

    Yes that would be 12%. With 8 players the net base value would be 0.48 WPPRs.

    #249 6 years ago

    If you have to join something ahead of time and it requires mandatory attendance to multiple events, we would consider that a league.

    If results are being submitted based on the activity from that evening, and anyone can show up at the it leisure week to week or month to month, then we consider those tournaments.

    Your example sounds like a typical weekly or monthly tournament which would have to be on the calendar ahead of time to be endorsed.

    #256 5 years ago

    Everything Marcus says is 100% correct

    #260 5 years ago

    That all looks correct to me . . . and there is no difference with respect to TGP based on how many players worth of scores you are comparing for the game played (whether that be 1 other player, 3 other players, or comparing one score to all other participants in the tournament).

    #264 5 years ago

    There's no difference between calling something a league or tournament.

    The data gets graded the same way.

    2 months later
    #266 5 years ago
    Quoted from fna_royam:

    and now i'm a little worried it doesn't conform to the new system depending on how you view the restriction of "timed game"

    This kind of format is no problem.

    The "timed game" that isn't acceptable is:

    "We set up Attack From Mars, and everyone got 5 minutes of unlimited play to score as many points as they could."

    At that point capping the time available reduces the amount that player skill actually impacts the result.

    #271 5 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Just curious when the new formula is going live and when the switch will be flipped?

    I would like to see how things are shaping up and where I stand as I make plans for travel this year.

    We're getting closer. Test site has everything pre-2015 implemented (I think). Working hard to make sure everything is working properly, and then we'll try to throw the 2015 results and see what happens.

    I can tell you that you're 339th under the old system, and 347th under the new system.

    #272 5 years ago
    Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

    What about games like Safe Cracker that only have timed play? or other games that kill the fipper and end the ball if you run of time.

    We won't recommend the usage of those games, and personally you'll never see a tournament I run use those kind of machines, but we would still endorse those events.

    #287 5 years ago
    Quoted from LOTR_breath:

    Josh could say for sure, but I think your calculations are wrong. If it is "unlimited qualifying" then you only get 1% per hour, and you MUST reduce the field by at least 50% going into playoffs. Number of meaningful games in this case does not apply. So 56% for your playoffs and 4% for qualifying = 60%. Am I right?

    Number of meaningful games apply regardless of whether there is Unlimited Qualifying OR Limited Qualifying.

    The only difference is that the time component is added to the mix if there are unlimited opportunities to keep trying.

    So the difference between simply playing every game three times (TGP = 12%), and play those three games as many times as you want for 4 hours, but only your best 3 games count would be TGP of 16%. The idea being giving the additional chances for players to play more attempts and show off their skill makes the event more valuable then limiting those chances to display their skill.

    The only potential issue we may run into, is something like this:

    "Players will have 2 hours of unlimited qualifying, and the best score on each of the 50 qualifying machines will be includes in the standings."

    At some point there's sort of a natural law to how many games you can possibly expect players to get through in the time allotted. If we see people trying to exploit the system by 'counting 25 games played' but due to the short qualifying period that wasn't even possible, we'll step in and deal with those situations.

    It's by far the most popular question I get:

    "How do I make my tournament more valuable, but still keeping my tournament to only 2 hours long?"

    At some point you just can't. The whole idea of the new system is to reward increased value to the organizers that are putting in the time to run longer events where more games can be played, thus leading to a more 'quality' result.

    4 months later
    #296 5 years ago
    Quoted from Frax:

    The extended decay to 4 years

    Everything Frax has said is 100% correct . . . except this

    We ended up keeping things at the 100/75/50 decay over 3 years.

    Can't wait to see how WPPR v6.0 will impact all the people that don't care about WPPR's

    #298 5 years ago
    Quoted from haugstrup:

    I'm guessing it's change #1 that's finally being implemented and that lowered the points value of your league


    (and funny enough it's a change where it's actually not possible for anyone to gain points, points will only be lost by everyone due to this change. We've actually found a way to piss off EVERYONE all at once)

    #303 5 years ago
    Quoted from Frax:

    I think you troll this board as much as I do, given your average response time.

    I can't help but keep checking to see if my Magic Girl is shipping yet

    The impact WPPR v5 results will have on a player's resume will depend on the player.

    My brother for example already has 8 of his top 20 events from 2015 (40%), which is ahead of a typical pace of 'new year results' replacing 'old year results' under the old system.

    I could dig and pull random examples at all ranks showing how the previous years decay is already impacting their ability to have their 2015 events actively counting on their resume . . . but that's way too much time and effort to spend while waiting for my Predator refund to kick in.

    #308 5 years ago
    Quoted from Frax:

    There is simply no way for a "Local hero" to overcome the built in defecit you've been given.

    This is absolutely by design. To be among the pinnacle of the elite, best in the world, blah blah blah, you HAVE to play in the biggest tournaments the world has to offer against the best competition.

    Just to put TPF in comparison to the sport's two World Championships . . .

    TPF had 3 top 50 players participate, and 6 top 100 players participate.

    IFPA12 had 26 top 50 players participate, and 50 top 100 players participate.

    PAPA18 had 33 top 50 players participate (holy shit that's crazy I almost didn't believe it), and 47 top 100 players participate.

    It's 'night and day' competition when you compare these larger regional events to what the IFPA considers the Majors, and the WPPR system definitely makes sure to put an emphasis on that in our formula.

    #310 5 years ago
    Quoted from LOTR_breath:

    Well, this might explain how I suddenly moved up about 15 places without actually adding in any meaningful results to my top 20.

    Damnit Chris! I thought we found a Magical (no pun intended) way to somehow move everyone in the rankings DOWN. It turns out those stupid laws of math still hold true that anytime a player moves down, it means there's some other players moving up. That means there are people that are going to like this change . . . BACK TO FORMULA!

    #311 5 years ago
    Quoted from GravitaR:

    They have done this to protect the top players and that's it.

    Todd gets it!

    The only thing I'll disagree with is that the 'top players' could be ANYONE (if you earn it). We're not specifically working to protect "Today's" top players . . . besides you know . . . protecting myself . . . and my brother . . . and anyone else in the top 50 that is currently sending me cash to keep their rank up.

    #315 5 years ago
    Quoted from Frax:

    Once you stop chasing every available point, it's a whole different game, and frankly, it's a hell of a lot less stressful, and I think I'm playing better overall as a result.

    A more true statement can't be made.

    Even I went a little crazy in 2007 when the WPPR shit was new to everyone, and quickly snapped back into the way I was playing competitive pinball between 1993-2006 . . . just to have some fun and hang out with my friends . . . and of course the trophies!

    #316 5 years ago
    Quoted from jonnyo:

    Are you offering pre-orders for these spots? Do you accept direct bank transfer, personal check, or other forms of completely unprotected payment?

    We can trust Josh, everyone. His dad invented pinball.

    LOL . . . we're currently negotiating the licensing of the rights to purchase the use of a WPPR spot, but not ownership of the WPPR spot. The good news is my dad is the best licensing guy in the business, so please send your deposit money with confidence.

    #320 5 years ago
    Quoted from sleethering:

    *raises hand* I have an actual question about base value. Or is this conversation just for adults whining about losing points?

    Only whining about losing points is allowed.

    (So tempting to just hit post and ignore your question but I won't)

    Quoted from sleethering:

    Are players with less than 5 events counted as zero and players who have five or more events contributing 0.5 WPPR to the base value? Or is it a sliding scale for players who have between 1-4 events?

    Example: Kidforce Pinball League - 105 players - Base value 23. Just curious how that base value was calculated. It seems like there would be more than 46 of those players with 5 or more events in their history, but didn't click through them all to be sure of that.

    It's an 'all or nothing' thing for the base value. After spending over 2 months trying to get the sliding scale to work it just wasn't in the cards right now. My guess is our logic is using the player count as the metric, and we were able to easily add the logic of first defining whether a player was marked as "Rated" or "Not Rated", as that was just one additional yes/no flag to be checked. Getting into the 1-4 events meant more than simply flagging a player in a yes/no decision, and it also messed up the fact that the logic is just 'counting players' and not assigning the value in the process. The value is assigned after the player count.

    #326 5 years ago

    Trent has actually played in more events in the last 12 months then I have personally played in the last 12 years . . . and I can't believe that isn't a joke.

    If you listen really closely, you can hear Trent playing in a tournament RIGHT NOW . . . somewhere

    #329 5 years ago
    Quoted from TaylorVA:

    Josh, is there any plan to deal with multi-state super leagues going forward? Members of my league aren't sure how players that never play in our state are being awarded such high WPPRs within our state. If our league decided to hold a league event in a neighboring state could we then be awarded WPPRs for that state?

    The way our SCS filters work, there's only a few possibilities for us to choose from:

    Option 1 --> Don't include the results in any state
    Option 2 --> Include the results in all states where they is some sort of activity
    Option 3 --> Arbitrarily come up with reasons to pick and choose which states deserve the SCS points for a given league, and which states don't

    Option 1 is easiest, but then it sucks for everyone

    Option 2 is a pain in the ass for me personally to deal with since those states then have to be manually updated throughout the year for the SCS events to be included for those states

    Option 3 is the hardest decision to get right, because the reasons to pick and choose why/why not something gets included here but not there is just HARD. Do you let the League President just decide? Does that present an issue with the League President arbitrarily picking the state that they plan on trying to qualify for in the SCS? Do we go with whichever state had the most 'activity' for that league during the year? Well that sucks because some states especially on the East coast heavily rely on the results from these leagues as an integral part of their SCS standings.

    I guess we could simply not endorse any leagues that stretch state borders, and leave it to those leagues to break up into separate divisions . . . but I don't want to blow that something up that's actually working for these groups in reality.

    The ultimate deciding factor is that any given player can only play in ONE SCS FINAL, so you can award points for that player across all 50 states and 49 of those states will end up being worthless with respect to the final standings of that state (once that player is skipped in the standings).

    So short answer . . .we have no plan

    #331 5 years ago
    Quoted from Frax:

    To be compeltely honest I don't know how that metric is calculated...

    Even I'm not exactly sure about the Eff% formula, but here's my understanding:

    The WPPR points earned / The WPPR points available for 1st place = EFF%

    So for example, your results from Cactus Jack's:

    1st place got 40.23 points and you got 6.57 points for 13th place. This was an EFF% of 16.3%.

    Now whether it's just your active results counted, or all results over the past 3 years, or all results for the history of time, or whether it's calculated this way at all . . . I'm not really sure

    #332 5 years ago
    Quoted from 85vett:

    All I know now is that I feel what we have today alienates more people than it invites which is not good for long term competitive pinball

    That feeling is definitely the one thing I'm most worried about. The most important metric that I personally follow is the number of players that are actively competing in IFPA endorsed events year over year. If we get into a situation where the number of players actively playing starts a downward spiral, we're sunk!

    Luckily we keep track of those stats, and I check them every month . . .

    2015 --> 8714 players (through June 8th)
    2014 --> 13347 players
    2013 --> 9820 players
    2012 --> 7648 players
    2011 --> 6179 players

    #343 5 years ago

    Sorry about that Jon . . . totally missed your previous post.

    Per our rules:

    "The TGP only considers games of 3 or more balls in the game count, with the exception of the Pin-Golf format where players can possibly hit their target score in fewer than 3 balls. 1 ball games or any timed games will not be included in the TGP calculation."

    It's possible for you to used a timed format as part of your event, and have impact on the final standings, however they simply won't be included in the final game count for TGP purposes.

    #348 5 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Any stats on players that played 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc... events in a year.

    I am curious how many of those new players are just a single event or actually becoming more active or less active?

    I'm sure there is a way to query this from one of our tables (I'm extremely confident I used the correct computer database lingo there) . . . but I have no idea how to do that

    #351 5 years ago
    Quoted from Frax:

    Just to play devil's advocate...

    Would it count towards TGP if the games were scored as points/time = rank, and whoever has the higher rank is the winner of the round? They'd still be allowed to play 3 balls but be punished for excessive cradling, etc.

    That's interesting . . .

    I'd toss this over to the IFPA Directors to vote on. I could see them going either way on it.

    The idea about "punishing players for excessive cradling" makes it sound like cradling isn't an integral skill in playing pinball, which I believe it is, so there's a delicate balance here when you push something into not really being "pinball".

    If you actually wanted to try and do something like this though, let me know and I really will post it to the Directors to discuss.

    #352 5 years ago
    Quoted from jonnyo:

    Well, I hope at some point you'll reconsider. Maybe even try running it at one of your local events sometime and you'll see what I mean about its advantages and that it's still very skillful play. As much, I feel, as pingolf is anyway.

    I get it, and have played in some of the old Gauntlet style events that Bowen has run, and they are TONS OF FUN!

    At some point though I take it to the golf analogy. On the PGA Tour they run many styles of tournaments, stroke play, match play, skins games, best ball, etc . . . but I've yet to see Speed Golf as one of the formats. The day they start to sprinkle in Speed Golf events on the tour, maybe we'll consider it for pinball

    #353 5 years ago
    Quoted from Frax:

    Time for me and you to go in on a copy of SQL4Dummies man.

    I remember the first time Shepherd taught me how to query something, and I had to call him and told him I messed something up on the "My S-Q-L" (I announced each letter) page.

    He just busted out laughing telling me it was pronounced "Sequel", and that I'm now an even bigger dork.

    #354 5 years ago
    Quoted from jonnyo:

    Speaking of which - Josh, would guantlet fall under the timed game format? That's similar to pingolf, just with the haul-ass factor.

    It would . . . NOT under the current rules.

    Haul-ass factor eliminates the format from being endorsed by the IFPA.

    #358 5 years ago
    Quoted from jonnyo:

    "The sport is now played in North America, Europe and Japan, and major tournaments are telecast by channels such as ESPN, CBS, and The Golf Channel." for the International Speed Flipper Pinball Association is available! Jump on it!

    #359 5 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Any stats on players that played 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc... events in a year.

    Shepherd to the rescue with his S-Q-L Sequel skillz:


    #362 5 years ago
    Quoted from Flamethrower:

    Elimination events actually grade out much better under the new rules (something I understand/hope is going to be addressed in 2016?)

    It's on the list

    #364 5 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    very cool! thanks for sharing.

    what about player count of those with 5+ events over the years?

    In other words how has ranked player count tracked over the years?

    I have no idea what the means lol

    If you add the numbers from 5 events plus all the numbers to the right of it for each year, you'll get that total of players competing in 5+ events per year.

    #367 5 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    Any insight on what changes may happen with elimination grading? The regulars in my bi-weekly elimination event are actually pretty interested in the ways things work and changes that happen.

    Nothing to talk about at this point, or else everyone will beat the horse to death before it's even born

    #370 5 years ago

    That's definitely a question for Shepherd

    #372 5 years ago

    Pro or premium (walker bombs make a HUGE difference)?

    #375 5 years ago

    Focus on trying to stack a mode and either MB (obviously if you can drag in Blood Bath to all of it you're doing fine at that point).

    I'll typically try to get the multiball to 1 shot away and then try to start the mode first - mostly because it's easier to start the mode you want without balls flying all around the playfield.

    I'm a big Tunnel guy because you can rack up points all around the playfield. Just don't shoot the tunnel shot after you shoot other shit or you'll end the mode prematurely. If you can get your 2X playfield going, you're talking about over 10 million a shot around the playfield. Add in the inlane multiplier and you have the potential just blow things up if you're able to execute well.

    Second favorite mode is probably Barn, followed by CDC . . . with Arena being okkkk, and Riot currently being a "fuck, I didn't want to start that". I'm sure the Riot scoring will be adjusted at some future point to account for the difficulty of that shot.

    With the way Lyman has worked in the Multi-kill scoring (5% of your mode points that you've earned throughout the game), there's additional opportunities to just keep cashing in around the playfield. If eventually becomes a loaded craps table if you're starting additional modes, scoring well, keeping your 2X playfield going, etc.

    It'll be fun to break it down with Nate tomorrow night. Game is a blast. My only wish with the Walker Bombs being added was that there was a way to just put an LE lockdown bar on a PRO and it would 'recognize it', because the strategy behind using those effectively takes the game to even another level.

    #378 5 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Also just to make sure I understand correctly the only way to start a mode is drop the 3 bank and then you pick by hitting one of the flashing choices?

    Yup . . . it becomes "X+1" sets of drops to light your next mode, so IMO it's best to try and make your Prison progress BEFORE you start your first mode. Nothing worse then needing to complete 2 sets of drops to light your second mode when you're getting close to stacking a mode with a Multiball, BUT you're far more likely to bring in Blood Bath at that point assuming you were clearing your drop target banks efficiently. By the time you're lighting mode #2, you'll be through 3 sets of drop target banks, which should have Blood Bath ready to go on the next set (assuming you cleared through the Food, Supplies and First Aid efficiently). Huge risk/reward opportunities are around every turn.

    #385 5 years ago
    Quoted from Dbaum88:

    See? This is the typical elitist attitude that will keep pinball SMALL. I can't become a top 100 player overnight, just as very few of you did. The IFPA should want inclusion; to continue to grow our hobby. Josh should know this better than anyone.

    So you're supposed to be able to enter the top 0.3% of ranked pinball players (top 100 out of 33,000) overnight?

    How quickly should a rankings system allow someone to move up from 'not playing' to the top 0.3% best in the world at anything (not just pinball)?

    There seems to be this "top 100" thing where everyone feels like it should be easily attainable for someone to casual make their way to that level. Unfortunately you can't have more than 100 players in the top 100, so at some point the 100th ranked player is REALLLLLLLY GOOD (like even right now). Even looking at players in that 90-100 range, you're talking about people that have dozens of tournament victories on their resume.

    IMO the WPPR system does a great job allowing someone to move up the rankings EXTREMELY FAST just by getting out and playing. One of my favorite people to track is our lovely C2C pinball host Mr. Nate Shivers. His competitive pinball "career" really started in January 2014. Here's his progress up the charts:

    Jan 2014 --> ranked 12,816th (finished 65th/70th at INDISC Main and Classics)
    May 2014 --> ranked 4723rd (finished 51st at Midwest Gaming Classic)
    July 2014 --> ranked 4036th (finished 25th at Southern Fried)
    Nov 2014 --> ranked 3945th (finished 90th at Pinball Expo)
    Apr 2015 --> ranked 1943rd (went crazy at Texas Pinball Festival including a 14th place finish in Vintage)

    Nate's at about 18 months into his journey, and went from an unranked player to someone that's ranked in the top 6% of players in the world. Not bad at all for someone that still feels like he's getting better as a player. I guess the question to ask is should Nate be in the top 100 based on his performances? What kind of player SHOULD be in the top 100? etc . . .

    Quoted from Dbaum88:

    If you keep up this attitude long enough, it will be back to 100 guys in a room playing for $50.

    That's the fear we live with . . . let's look at the facts and see where our "attitude" has taken us to this point:

    2015 --> 1455 players average playing at least 1 tournament a month
    2014 --> 1364 players average playing at least 1 tournament a month
    2013 --> 843 players average playing at least 1 tournament a month
    2012 --> 546 players average playing at least 1 tournament a month
    2011 --> 406 players average playing at least 1 tournament a month
    2010 --> 310 players average playing at least 1 tournament a month
    2009 --> 203 players average playing at least 1 tournament a month
    2008 --> 119 players average playing at least 1 tournament a month
    2007 --> 71 players average playing at least 1 tournament a month

    I'd add additional commentary to those facts/figures, but damn that's shockingly impressive. I'm just going to let those numbers speak for themselves on the health and growth of competitive pinball.

    If only we could find a way to have all of the 1455 players out there playing consistently all ranked in the top 100

    #386 5 years ago
    Quoted from sk8ball:

    Funny, I find myself doing nothing but shooting drop targets in either version

    That's probably why this stat exists

    Keith Elwin --> 8
    Josh Sharpe --> 0

    (number of Major Championships won)

    #390 5 years ago
    Quoted from Dbaum88:

    Same attitude Josh. I never asked to be indiscriminately placed in the top 100. But if you have a system that awards points, which I was awarded since January, and then u change the system and take away many of those points, that is a disincentive to follow the system and attempt to move up the rankings.

    I know I'm not anywhere near a top 100 player nor did I ever claim to be. However, I would at least like to know that if I earn points under a current system, that the system will.not change RETROACTIVELY and reduce the points I've earned on YOUR system. Maybe you could've changed it moving forward - and not reduce points already earned under a system in place at that time.

    We do the best we can to not make changes during a season, but unfortunately sometimes it happens and believe me it's for 'greater good' of the accuracy of the system when we do it (even if a large group of people think that's not the case).

    Just to again keep things in perspective, I pulled up your profile to analyze what the change did you personally. Unfortunately you did take a bigger hit compared to most, so your frustration is not lost on me at all.

    Currently you're ranked 2570th with 16.80 WPPR points.

    The change cost you 3.51 WPPR points, which would have had you at a rank of 2292nd.

    At the State level, you currently sit in 7th place. If these changes didn't go in, you would currently be in . . . 6th place.

    If that 10% drop in your world ranking, and 1 spot change in the Georgia SCS is a big enough issue that you no longer follow the system AND stop playing competitive pinball in general that's a big problem for me. If you stop following the system but still play in your Atlanta league and some of the other local events, I'd be far less disappointed in simply losing you as an 'interested WPPR person'.

    #392 5 years ago
    Quoted from Dbaum88:

    what faith can I have in earning points if u feel the need to tweak the,system and retroactively reduce the points I've already earned?!?

    We're not asking you to have any sort of faith in the system. We're not even asking you to care about the points. We just want you playing competitive pinball for any reason that gets you playing. For some the WPPR's help, for others it doesn't matter.

    I'm not going to try and convince people that the changes we make go through EXTENSIVE testing, because we know it rocks the boat each and every time we do it. People feel like we wake up and I call Brian Shepherd and we have the following conversation:

    Me - "It's a beautiful Wednesday morning . . . what do you think about hmmmm, I don't know, let's take away 10% of the points from tournaments that didn't use a game my dad designed, because we all know those games are the BEST."

    Brian - "Yeah, I can do that . . . I'll have it up later today."

    Let me just brace you well in advance. We WILL have changes to the system for 2016. We HOPE to not have any more changes made in the 2015 season (confident we won't but you never know the exploits that people dig up). Some changes will totally irritate you more, and some changes may benefit the tournaments you play in.

    #395 5 years ago
    Quoted from Dbaum88:

    I appreciate this response. Thank you.

    I didn't mean to attack anyone, particularly you. But its been frustrating. I'm no great player, but I am improving and was enjoying moving up the ranks...albeit slowly. It'll probably take me 6 months to get back to 2300 but thats fine. I just hope I can keep my measly points next time and hope to break the 1000 barrier someday. It's just frustrating watching my points slip away that I already earned.

    I get it David for sure . . . it fucking sucks.

    The good news is holy crap do you guys have a ton of stuff going on in the Atlanta area. Between the H2H league, the NGPL and Southern Fried coming up, I could think of worse places in the world for you to be with respect to access to tournaments near you.

    You'll have to shoot me a PM and let me know where you end up at the end of 2015, because I'll definitely take the under on getting back to 2300 in 6 months (especially if you plan on attending Southern Fried).

    #399 5 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    this is cool.

    Is there an easy way to do this for ourselves and see our history over time.

    I know that Greg Dunlap had created a WPPR Nerdery page where you could view your rank and points earned over time . . . but can't seem to find that link (or if it's still active).

    While I don't have the time to query everybody, I'm sure there's enough Pinsiders that wouldn't mind seeing your rise up the ranks since you were a young Whysnow pup back in 2012

    We archive rankings/ratings at the first of every month, so it's not as detailed as it could be, but here you go!

    3/1/2012 1414
    4/1/2012 1466
    5/1/2012 1504
    6/1/2012 1550
    7/1/2012 1591
    8/1/2012 1621
    9/1/2012 1663
    10/1/2012 1721
    11/1/2012 1730
    12/1/2012 1797
    1/1/2013 1847
    2/1/2013 1857
    3/1/2013 2242
    4/1/2013 1544
    5/1/2013 1590
    6/1/2013 1607
    7/1/2013 1649
    8/1/2013 1671
    9/1/2013 1715
    10/1/2013 1517
    11/1/2013 1408
    12/1/2013 1402
    1/1/2014 1176
    2/1/2014 1194
    3/1/2014 1116
    4/1/2014 729
    5/1/2014 712
    6/1/2014 707
    7/1/2014 723
    8/1/2014 735
    9/1/2014 743
    10/1/2014 647
    11/1/2014 671
    12/1/2014 703
    1/1/2015 350
    2/1/2015 355
    3/1/2015 363
    4/1/2015 359
    5/1/2015 341
    6/1/2015 321

    #403 5 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    Am I reading this correct that the first ranking was 1414? That's basically winning (or coming close to) the first event you play in right?

    Hilton actually did have a solid 'first tournament' finish. He finished 5th at an 'annual - full value' tournaments up in Wisconsin.

    Remember that back in 2012 we only had ~9000 players, so him jumping from 9000th to 1414th is like someone today jumping in from 33,000th to 5,185th.

    #421 5 years ago
    Quoted from Flamethrower:

    Has IFPA's policy on endorsing women-only events changed? I was surprised to see this tournament receive points.

    Bug in our script . . . it'll be fixed soon.

    #432 5 years ago
    Quoted from jay:

    I'd be absolutely thrilled for my 8 CA points to have me in a qualifying position for the state final, instead of being in 105th.

    Not sure I'm understanding this right. I don't show you losing 8 CA points, but rather 3.71 CA points over the 3 events you've played in.

    Forgetting about the fact that some players around you lost more than you did (which actually caused you to move up), if we pretended that everyone else got penalized except you, this would put you at 11.97 CA SCS points in 86th place. Currently qualifying position for CA is 54.22 WPPR's to make the cut in 16th place at the moment.

    #434 5 years ago
    Quoted from Troz:

    I think Jay's comparing the # of points to be in a qualifying position in CA vs GA (at least for the next two weeks...)

    Ahhhhh that makes more sense . . . and somewhere in the world Bob Matthews just decided to go to GA over CA for the 2015-16 SCS

    #440 5 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    I guess I should also clarify. AZ's #1 player had ~150 points for the 2015 SCS and now they have 128.xx. I actually moved up a few spots in AZ over the weekend, but that's because an entry from an event went live.

    This looks to be the WPPR v5.1 adjustment related to the Rated players change. If I glance at Mark's results, Zapcon lost 17.5 base points for the Main Tournament (which he won, so he sees 100% of that loss). The Classics tournament lost 5.5 base points as well, so Mark saw some portion of that loss with his 2nd place finish.

    #442 5 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    Makes sense, but I thought the non-rated player hit had already happened. Is this something that will happen every few months, or will future results account for any non-rated players who played?

    We weren't able to get it when we made the announcement about the change, so it just went in recently.

    See the date where this thread became more 'active' after dormant for a while. I'll say the changes actually went in that day

    Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
    $ 39.99
    Lighting - Interactive
    Lee's Parts
    $ 12.00
    Cabinet - Other
    Siegecraft Electronics
    $ 999.00
    Pinball Machine
    $ 40.00
    Playfield - Decals
    Great American Pinball
    $ 5.00
    Cabinet - Other
    UpKick Pinball
    $ 259.99
    Cabinet - Toppers
    Lighted Pinball Mods
    $ 235.00
    Lighting - Interactive
    Professor Pinball
    $ 495.00
    Cabinet - Armor And Blades
    MI Pinball Refinery
    $ 5.00
    Playfield - Decals
    Doc's Pinball Shop
    $ 69.99
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    Lighted Pinball Mods
    $ 24.00
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    The MOD Couple
    From: $ 40.00
    $ 22.50
    Pinball Magazine
    $ 40.00
    Gameroom - Decorations
    Arcade Arts
    $ 40.99
    Lighting - Interactive
    Lee's Parts
    $ 18.25
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    The MOD Couple
    $ 17.00
    $ 19.95
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    $ 3.50
    Various Other Swag
    UpKick Pinball
    $ 275.00
    $ 7,599.00
    Pinball Machine
    Classic Game Rooms
    $ 149.00
    Boston Pinball Company
    $ 1,000.00
    $ 79.95
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    $ 30.00
    $ 259.99
    Cabinet - Toppers
    Lighted Pinball Mods
    $ 29.95
    Apparel - Unisex
    The GameRoom Store
    $ 26.95
    Playfield - Protection
    $ 25.00
    Cabinet - Other
    Filament Printing
    From: $ 40.00
    Various Novelties
    Pinball Photos

    You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider ifpapinball.
    Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

    Hey there! Got a moment?

    Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside