(Topic ID: 138272)

WPPR formula change to v5.2 for 2016!

By ifpapinball

8 years ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

  • 446 posts
  • 57 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 7 years ago by ryanwanger
  • Topic is favorited by 10 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    Topic Gallery

    View topic image gallery

    12669318_946183265472677_2067917693_o_(resized).jpg
    Stl_(resized).jpg
    Mpin_(resized).jpg
    lvl257_(resized).jpg

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

    #187 8 years ago
    Quoted from TaylorVA:

    I played Bad Cats at Pinburgh 2014 and player one collected a progressive jackpot from a seemingly immediate drain down the right outlane. The score from just that jackpot won the table.
    Same tourney played Rollergames and two balls were locked from a prior game. Player one dropped the drops and locked one ball and started MB, once again winning the game.
    Both were in a major tournament and both seemed like knockout blows to the group.

    I'm pretty sure you can't collect a jackpot from the outlane on Bad Cats; you can get a Curiosity Spin on ball 3. You can *light* the jackpot but that doesn't do much good when the ball's already drained. Bad Cats' jackpot is significant but there are ways to beat that kind of score.

    Lock stealing is a bit luck-of-the-draw but was very common in late 80s machines like Rollergames, Fire, Elvira, Jokerz, and many more. Only 3 locks for multiball on Rollergames! For Pinburgh 2013 there was an experiment with playing these games as 1 player only; player feedback was very negative toward this and it was not done again.

    One moral is that when the tournament has 200+ games, not all of them are going to be wonderfully balanced competition machines...

    #189 8 years ago
    Quoted from TaylorVA:

    My memory of the "Bad cats incident of 2014" certainly could have happened differently but it still stands that the play of another impacted the result of a game as do the games that allow lock stealing or award score stealing.

    Oh, no doubt. One other thing is that others' play leads you to different situational choices. If your opponent has 100 million on Medieval Madness, you're going to play differently than if they have 10 million. Or, you should anyway

    4 months later
    #371 8 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    I say let them do it. The ones that do it will be pretty obvious IMO and like I said, they still have to beat the other people in B. I just played in the KY state championships and watched someone who has never play in a tournament before win. It just makes the victory that much sweeter IMO

    They will be obvious, and nobody will like it, and all the money prizes in lower divisions will go to players who don't belong there.

    Also know that at PAPA, a new player can select any division, there is no low end of restrictions, just a high end.

    In my opinion, division restrictions are necessary in any event with substantial prizes for lower divisions.

    #388 8 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    From what the IFPA results say, everyone that played in Pinburgh got IFPA points. For PAPA, anyone that didn't make A got zero points.

    Players choose their division upon arrival at PAPA, so there is no "making A". Any player can compete in A. Most choose not to, so they don't receive any points.

    At events like Louisville and California Extreme, rather than have players choose A or B up front, players are judged to be "B eligible" or "casual eligible", and the B finals are based on performance in the main division. Think of those B finals as "bonus events". Some of this was spurred by IFPA's decision to only count top-division play for points; at LAX, everyone's qualifying play counts for points, even players who would otherwise have self-selected a lower division.

    #391 8 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    Thanks Bowen. That makes a lot of sense. I just wonder if at PAPA there is a way to get points for all those people that either didn't qualify for A or chose another division. That is a lot of people that would get points that could then bring those points back home to their local events, thus contributing towards the increased points that are awarded to their local events. This would help with the SCS debate on keeping state championships with more local/regional players too. Just a thought.

    IFPA makes the decisions about how points are awarded, not PAPA, so you'd have to take it up with them, and they've already explained why they choose not to give points to lower divisions. The PAPA format has been the same for 13 years. Players choosing A Division will earn points, everyone else won't. Pinburgh awards points to all 700 players.

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

    Reply

    Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

    Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

    Donate to Pinside

    Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!


    This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/wppr-formula-change-to-v52-for-2016?tu=bkerins and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.

    Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.