(Topic ID: 160185)

WPPR formula change to v5.3 for 2017!


By ifpapinball

3 years ago



Topic Stats

  • 99 posts
  • 18 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 3 years ago by ifpapinball
  • Topic is favorited by 4 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    There are 99 posts in this topic. You are on page 1 of 2.
    #1 3 years ago

    Since the release of WPPR v5.2 for the 2016 season, the IFPA has continued investigating ways to make the World Pinball Player Rankings more accurate for how we rank players across the globe.

    These latest changes will be incorporated into WPPR v5.3 which will be implemented starting January 1, 2017.
    Please note that for all 2016 IFPA related activities (qualifying for 2016-17 SCS, 2016-17 ECS, IFPA14, etc), version 5.2 will be used for that qualification process.

    Below is an overview of changes for the updated 2017 formula:

    - For any IFPA endorsed tournament or league with a qualifying portion, only players that participate in at least 50% of the games used in determining those qualifying positions will be included in the final results. Any players that don’t meet this minimum participation requirement should be removed from the results by the tournament director (TD) prior to submitting those results to the IFPA. For example, a Best Game qualifying format where 10 machines are available with the best 7 scores counting towards the player’s qualifying position, any player that plays fewer than 4 machines will be removed from the standings submitted to the IFPA. For leagues, this means that players must participate in at least 50% of the sessions of the regular season to be included in the final standings submitted to the IFPA.

    - Certain formats (Selfie Leagues, TOPS Tournaments, etc) rely on players submitting their own results without the verification of a TD or authorized scorekeeper on site. Any qualifying format that includes “unverified” results where a TD, league official, or authorized scorekeeper is not present to record their score, will not have the qualifying portion included in the TGP calculation. The IFPA will classify these qualifying formats as strictly for seeding purposes, with only the finals format counting towards the TGP calculation.

    - The TGP will now include games played that are fewer than 3 balls, including timed formats where players are attempting to reach a score or objective as quickly as possible. Any game where it’s possible for the player to finish on the first ball in play, will be calculated at 33% value for TGP purposes. For example, if players have a goal of reaching a certain feature in a game as a way of winning that game or match, the fact that it is POSSIBLE for the player to reach that objective on ball 1 means this will count as 1/3rd of a game played towards TGP. The exception to this rule will be the Pin-Golf format, which will have it’s own set of grading rules (see next bullet points).

    - The IFPA is launching the IFPA Tour of endorsed Pin-Golf events. We are now enforcing stricter rules regarding how organizers can score a IFPA endorsed Pin-Golf format tournament, and events must meet this criteria with their course design to award WPPR points as an IFPA endorsed event. The WPPR points awarded for Pin-Golf events will now include a Pin-Golf Multiplier (PGM) adjustment. This metric is used to grade the difficulty of the course. Full details on the IFPA Tour, rules of course design, and the calculation of the PGM adjustment are available here: http://www.ifpapinball.com/pingolf/

    For full detailed information on the 2017 formula, visit: http://www.ifpapinball.com/menu/ranking-info-2017/

    Any questions please don’t hesitate to contact us at ifpapinball@gmail.com. Please check back when we announce that WPPR v5.3 has been implemented for 2017 as the details may always change prior to launch.

    #2 3 years ago

    2017 the Death of the Selfie League.

    Will the IFPA allow Belly Putters for PinGolf Events?

    #3 3 years ago

    - Certain formats (Selfie Leagues, TOPS Tournaments, etc) rely on players submitting their own results without the verification of a TD or authorized scorekeeper on site. Any qualifying format that includes “unverified” results where a TD, league official, or authorized scorekeeper is not present to record their score, will not have the qualifying portion included in the TGP calculation. The IFPA will classify these qualifying formats as strictly for seeding purposes, with only the finals format counting towards the TGP calculation.

    As in the 20% cap for unlimited qualifying and cutting the field in half, or does that also include the 4%/game for those that are available to play?

    #4 3 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    2017 the Death of the Selfie League.

    not really... Just decreases the TGP to zero for qualifying. Still will be lots of selfie leagues because they are fun to play in.

    I will say it is really sad to see this format stripped of value since so many like it and it seems to really help to bring out new people and introcuce them to competitive play. 50% value of qualifying games would seem to be a better compromise than 0%.

    #5 3 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    As in the 20% cap for unlimited qualifying, or does that also include the 4%/game for those that are available to play?

    Both the time and game element of TGP won't be counted.

    This qualifying portion will be strictly looked at as seeding.

    #6 3 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    - Certain formats (Selfie Leagues, TOPS Tournaments, etc) rely on players submitting their own results without the verification of a TD or authorized scorekeeper on site. Any qualifying format that includes “unverified” results where a TD, league official, or authorized scorekeeper is not present to record their score, will not have the qualifying portion included in the TGP calculation. The IFPA will classify these qualifying formats as strictly for seeding purposes, with only the finals format counting towards the TGP calculation.
    As in the 20% cap for unlimited qualifying, or does that also include the 4%/game for those that are available to play?

    I think what Josh is saying is qualifying games will not count.

    #7 3 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    As in the 20% cap for unlimited qualifying, or does that also include the 4%/game for those that are available to play?

    good question. If the unlimited qualifying still earns 20% then it seems fair.

    #8 3 years ago

    They should kill off these leagues entirely...there are players in the top 100 with most of their points coming from leagues. They are glorified attendance prize WPPR factories.

    #9 3 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    This qualifying portion will be strictly looked at as seeding.

    lame

    #10 3 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Both the time and game element of TGP won't be counted.
    This qualifying portion will be strictly looked at as seeding.

    It's because I've messed it up every time I submit, isn't it?

    #11 3 years ago

    I will say that EVERY event has the ability for people to cheat the system. Even experienced scorekeepers can miss a beneficial malfunction or a player gaming the system. The self policing of selfie leagues and threat of being eliminated form all events seemed to take care of all possible cheating in my experience. Taking the qualifying value to zero is a bit extreme IMO.

    There should be a compromise since there are so many benefits to these type of events.

    #12 3 years ago
    Quoted from CrazyLevi:

    They should kill off these leagues entirely...there are players in the top 100 with most of their points coming from leagues. They are glorified attendance prize WPPR factories.

    It's also given my location a nice % increase in coin drop since I've started them. I'm going to double the size of my finals from 4 players to 8 to mostly make up for the loss of qualifying. If we could get to 16 players that would have happened already, but it's a small following for now. That's something that is hard to balance; I have no idea what NYC finals look like, but their numbers dwarf us so we will be affected by any corrective action.

    My events tend to be 3 points if normal participation happens.

    #13 3 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    It's also given my location a nice % increase in coin drop since I've started them. I'm going to double the size of my finals from 4 players to 8 to mostly make up for the loss of qualifying. If we could get to 16 players that would have happened already, but it's a small following for now. That's something that is hard to balance; I have no idea what NYC finals look like, but their numbers dwarf us so we will be affected by any corrective action.
    My events tend to be 3 points if normal participation happens.

    I'm just basing this on what I've seen - players in the top 100 who have virtually all of their points coming from what is basically a participation trophy. I haven't seen a compelling reason why these leagues are allowed to exist from a competitive standpoint, though I do appreciate it's giving locations more coin drop.

    I understand I could participate if I'd like but dedicating one day a week to this and basically buying WPPRs isn't my idea of a good time. I prefer actual one day or weekend tournaments.

    They keep chiseling away at these superleagues...eventually at some point they'll do just do what they should and kill them.

    Kill them with fire.

    #14 3 years ago
    Quoted from CrazyLevi:

    I'm just basing this on what I've seen - players in the top 100 who have virtually all of their points coming from what is basically a participation trophy. I haven't seen a compelling reason why these leagues are allowed to exist from a competitive standpoint, though I do appreciate it's giving locations more coin drop.
    I understand I could participate if I'd like but dedicating one day a week to this and basically buying WPPRs isn't my idea of a good time. I prefer actual one day or weekend tournaments.
    They keep chiseling away at these superleagues...eventually at some point they'll do just do what they should and kill them.
    Kill them with fire.

    I can see the point for the top 100 players who get most/all of their active results from NY Superleague. The problem here is that the NY one has somebody there to verify scores, so they won't be affected by this. So NYC will still be heads above.

    I have many local players who struggle with work schedules. They say the #1 appeal is the convenience of being able to come in and submit scores. If they qualify and show up for the finals (most of the time) great. If not, they come in 4th for the month, even if they qualified 1st. I give away a growler and fill token to the winner, so maybe a change in points won't matter that much. But, I do have several players who are very interested in the state ranking points. Many couldn't care less what their INTL rank is, but making AZ state finals is a big deal. One year, Mark and Will will be dethroned and a few Tucson players are looking to make that claim.

    #15 3 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    I can see the point for the top 100 players who get most/all of their active results from NY Superleague. The problem here is that the NY one has somebody there to verify scores, so they won't be affected by this. So NYC will still be heads above.

    The 50% participation rule will have a far greater impact on the NYC Superleague.

    For the April 2016 results 26 out of the 165 players played at least 50% of the games required for qualification.

    The difference in value between a tournament with 165 players and 26 players . . . I won't even go into those details, but it's quite a large margin

    #16 3 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    The 50% participation rule will have a far greater impact on the NYC Superleague.
    For the April 2016 results 26 out of the 165 players played at least 50% of the games required for qualification.
    The difference in value between a tournament with 165 players and 26 players . . . I won't even go into those details, but it's quite a large margin

    I can see the people who don't know what to do and play a game to get on the list. I can see the people who know exactly what's going on putting up a score on anything and everything. What I can't see is a player who knows exactly what is going on and doesn't play a full card. Is that actually a thing? To correct this, NYC will put everyone on blast to do 50% of the games. Do you have Brian making a sniffer script to audit their logs?

    #17 3 years ago

    Sure

    Quoted from desertT1:

    I can see the people who don't know what to do and play a game to get on the list. I can see the people who know exactly what's going on putting up a score on anything and everything. What I can't see is a player who knows exactly what is going on and doesn't play a full card. Is that actually a thing?

    Sure. Plenty of people end up playing in these "leagues" either on a whim, without really knowing what they are doing, or in some cases, more or less without their knowledge. Places with a lot of street traffic can take advantage of this to pad their league with players who won't be coming back.

    #18 3 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    I can see the people who don't know what to do and play a game to get on the list. I can see the people who know exactly what's going on putting up a score on anything and everything. What I can't see is a player who knows exactly what is going on and doesn't play a full card. Is that actually a thing? To correct this, NYC will put everyone on blast to do 50% of the games. Do you have Brian making a sniffer script to audit their logs?

    It's not just about playing a full card. But I think this will require people to show up to at least 2 weeks of SuperLeague per month.

    #19 3 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    Do you have Brian making a sniffer script to audit their logs?

    We have something better . . . a whole group of people that have a vested interested in making sure that league is worth as little as possible. We have a lineup of volunteers willing to go through the qualifying results of every player that participates to make sure nobody is improperly counted.

    #20 3 years ago

    I think it's great to hold the open qualifying leagues to some verification standards. Makes perfect sense to me.

    Hmm I wonder if Superleague will drop their number of qualifying games to make it easier for casuals to hit 50% participation and make up the difference toward max TGP in playoffs.

    #21 3 years ago
    Quoted from sleethering:

    Hmm I wonder if Superleague will drop their number of qualifying games to make it easier for casuals to hit 50% participation and make up the difference toward max TGP in playoffs.

    You wonder very accurately

    #22 3 years ago

    I'm curious to see how proactive they will be about getting over that 50%.

    I don't really have a point of contention, just need to know how to answer the questions that are sure to come. It's a bummer that we'll take a hit in points, but we can adapt a little.

    #23 3 years ago

    I dig this update. This is the Superleague fix that I found WPPR 5.2 to be missing the mark on.

    Also it makes sense that TGP is calculated per amount of play a game gets. I haven't read all of what you have for Pingolf yet, but it sounds very promising.

    Interesting though, why the change to selfie leagues when both you and Shep are running one? Seemed like the boost to coin drop was a big point in its favor, but will it still be doing that with the lower value? Or do you have a format change in store for next year?

    #24 3 years ago
    Quoted from WaddleJrJr:

    Interesting though, why the change to selfie leagues when both you and Shep are running one? Seemed like the boost to coin drop was a big point in its favor, but will it still be doing that with the lower value? Or do you have a format change in store for next year?

    Shepherd himself actually came up with the proposal for the rule

    The fact that the play is totally unsupervised should impact the value of that event negatively compared to events that are fully supervised with officials, scorekeepers, etc.

    The question remains what it will do to coin drop next year. To be successful, at least in our monthly, you have to qualify in the top 4. Anyone outside of the top 4 simply can't win the tournament. That requires a high level of participation during the qualifying process regardless of whether that participation results in adding to the TGP or not. For me to win, I'll be forced to continue to qualifying during the now 'worthless' qualifying period just to have a chance at that A-division prize money/top WPPR's.

    -1
    #25 3 years ago

    I have NEVER played in a supervised event where i could not easily cheat or take advantage of a game if i so wished. The distinction of supervised vs unsupervised as being physical precense at a location is silly.

    #26 3 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    I have NEVER played in a supervised event where i could not easily cheat or take advantage of a game if i so wished. The distinction of supervised vs unsupervised as being physical precense at a location is silly.

    This isn't about super honest, upstanding people like you. It's about keeping everybody honest, even those who aren't as impervious to temptation as yourself.

    #27 3 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    I have NEVER played in a supervised event where i could not easily cheat or take advantage of a game if i so wished. The distinction of supervised vs unsupervised as being physical precense at a location is silly.

    I understand every event involves the potential for cheating. I've seen cheating at PAPA. I've seen cheating at IFPA.

    This isn't about the potential to cheat. This is about the ability for a TD/designated official to handle any potential malfunctions, rulings, etc. on the spot, and remedy that situation with the player immediately.

    Understand the frustration for sure, and figured this was a nice compromise compared to the many people that think this style of tournament should simply be not endorsed, full stop.

    #28 3 years ago

    A compromise would be to limit the qualfying value, not make it a flat zero.

    For someone trying to continue to build local competitive pinball and bring in new faces, the current format has been very successful. Limiting qualifying points just means more convoluted finals to maximize point value and make up for the loss of qualifying points.

    #29 3 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:A compromise would be to limit the qualfying value, not make it a flat zero.

    That would be a compromise if the argument was "full value vs. no value".

    The compromise we made was "Value vs. No WPPR's at all for the tournament".

    Allowing that format to continue as an endorsed format where this unverified play can have a significant impact on the results of the tournament is the compromise.

    #30 3 years ago
    Quoted from CrazyLevi:

    Quoted from Whysnow:
    I have NEVER played in a supervised event where i could not easily cheat or take advantage of a game if i so wished. The distinction of supervised vs unsupervised as being physical precense at a location is silly.

    This isn't about super honest, upstanding people like you. It's about keeping everybody honest, even those who aren't as impervious to temptation as yourself.

    Also not even necessarily a question of honesty. Without an official there to keep tabs on what's going on, players could be profiting from a beneficial malfunction without even knowing it. Our selfie league spans a broad range of skill levels (as I imagine most of these do?) and while I believe all my players are honest I'd guess about half of them don't have enough game knowledge to even recognize when they should stop playing in many cases.

    -2
    #31 3 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    That would be a compromise if the argument was "full value vs. no value".
    The compromise we made was "Value vs. No WPPR's at all for the tournament".
    Allowing that format to continue as an endorsed format where this unverified play can have a significant impact on the results of the tournament is the compromise.

    No, it is yet another decision laid solidly in the bias of the top 100 mindset. Better idea would to make a maximal base value from qualifying. It is obvious that so many decisions are based soley to preserve the values of some at the top of rankings and to go against the guy running the nyc super point grab.

    #32 3 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    No, it is yet another decision laid solidly in the bias of the top 100 mindset. Better idea would to make a maximal base value from qualifying. It is obvious that so many decisions are based soley to preserve the values of some at the top of rankings and to go against the guy running the nyc super point grab.

    Yet we somehow find a way to grow the player base year after year

    Appreciate the concerns ... I think we'll survive this adjustment just fine and the player base will continue to grow.

    I have some exciting SCS news to share in the near future once everyone is through the 5.3 WPPR hate fest

    #33 3 years ago

    Bring it on. Im on fire. Might as well get all the bullshit out of the way now.

    #34 3 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    I have some exciting SCS news to share in the near future once everyone is through the 5.3 WPPR hate fest

    Let me guess. Cannot have a league play in two states and have your points get awarded in both states? Booooooooooo. Haha

    #35 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    Let me guess. Cannot have a league play in two states and have your points get awarded in both states? Booooooooooo. Haha

    It might be our first announcement that actually gets 100% universal praise

    I can't imagine anyone arguing that it's not a good thing for the SCS (although Hilton may find a way)

    Details to come soon enough.

    #36 3 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    It might be our first announcement that actually gets 100% universal praise
    I can't imagine anyone arguing that it's not a good thing for the SCS (although Hilton may find a way)
    Details to come soon enough.

    No i was the first one to tell you how dumb it was before and that would be a welcomed change. Bout time u do something right

    #37 3 years ago

    It will have just helped out my weird area of NKY and Cincinnati that is a desert for IFPA points. But I completely understand if that rule was being abused elsewhere.

    #38 3 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    once everyone is through the 5.3 WPPR hate fest

    I'm not sure I would consider it a hate fest, the 50% participation rule is something that a lot of people have wanted for a long time.

    #39 3 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    It might be our first announcement that actually gets 100% universal praise
    I can't imagine anyone arguing that it's not a good thing for the SCS (although Hilton may find a way)
    Details to come soon enough.

    What a tease!

    I'm incredibly excited to hear, the SCS is what I'd call the greatest new addition to competitive pinball that I can think of. Would love to see it improved upon even more.

    #40 3 years ago
    Quoted from EricR:

    I'm not sure I would consider it a hate fest, the 50% participation rule is something that a lot of people have wanted for a long time.

    That was said in jest

    So far the response has been far more positive than I expected for sure.

    #41 3 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    It might be our first announcement that actually gets 100% universal praise
    I can't imagine anyone arguing that it's not a good thing for the SCS (although Hilton may find a way)
    Details to come soon enough.

    IFPA sponsors are adding cash to each SCS prize pool?

    Actual guess - Qualifers bumped from 16 to 24.

    #42 3 years ago
    Quoted from sleethering:

    IFPA sponsors are adding cash to each SCS prize pool?
    Actual guess - Qualifers bumped from 16 to 24.

    That would be awesome.

    #43 3 years ago
    Quoted from sleethering:

    IFPA sponsors are adding cash to each SCS prize pool?

    Getting warm! This secret is leaking worse than the next 7 Stern titles

    #44 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    That would be awesome.

    I think that would be a really bad idea. Most locations already have a tough enough time hosting 16 hardcore players. I think that is also a different calculation for each state and should be based on base number of active players (%) if they are tweaking it.

    #45 3 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    I think that would be a really bad idea. Most locations already have a tough enough time hosting 16 hardcore players. I think that is also a different calculation for each state and should be based on base number of active players (%) if they are tweaking it.

    I think it would get way more noob players involved, and that's a great thing.

    #46 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    I think it would get way more noob players involved, and that's a great thing.

    That is a good point and I agree. I already hosted a bolt on event last year where the top 48 in the state played and competed in an end of year event and it was a great success. Unfortunately many states dont even have SCS at this stage and lowering the barrier for hosting is probably still more important at this stage. As things continue to build then I could see opening up qualifying a bit deeper in a few more years.

    #47 3 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    That is a good point and I agree. I already hosted a bolt on event last year where the top 48 in the state played and competed in an end of year event and it was a great success. Unfortunately many states dont even have SCS at this stage and lowering the barrier for hosting is probably still more important at this stage. As things continue to build then I could see opening up qualifying a bit deeper in a few more years.

    Best of the Rest Champ Baby!

    #48 3 years ago

    I think the 5.3 changes are good.

    Josh, do you think we will see a drop off in Selfie Leagues?
    I think this is the only negative. Not because of WPPR but because it could hurt some of the locations running them in that there could be a drop in the number of players.

    #49 3 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    Best of the Rest Champ Baby!

    I hope whomever hosts this year is able to carry on and do it again!

    #50 3 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    I hope whomever hosts this year is able to carry on and do it again!

    Do we even have a Milwaukee TD or location?

    Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
    $ 28.25
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    The MOD Couple
    € 45.00
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    Dystopian Mods Italia
    $ 115.00
    Boards
    Little Shop Of Games
    $ 29.25
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    The MOD Couple
    From: $ 9.99
    Eproms
    Matt's Basement Arcade
    From: $ 200.00
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    CzTV Mods
    From: $ 66.00
    $ 12.99
    Cabinet - Decals
    Bent Mods
    $ 29.50
    Playfield - Plastics
    Pinball Haus
    $ 27.50
    $ 10.95
    $ 76.95
    Cabinet - Shooter Rods
    Super Skill Shot Shop
    $ 131.00
    Cabinet Parts
    Tilted Pinball
    € 27.00
    Cabinet - Other
    YOYOKOPTER MODS
    $ 2.00
    Playfield - Decals
    Doc's Pinball Shop
    $ 10.00
    Playfield - Decals
    Metal-Mods
    $ 7,599.00
    Pinball Machine
    Classic Game Rooms
    $ 89.99
    Cabinet - Toppers
    Id Rather Play Pinball
    $ 239.99
    Cabinet - Toppers
    Tilttopper
    $ 229.00
    Flipper Parts
    Mircoplayfields
    $ 76.95
    Cabinet - Shooter Rods
    Super Skill Shot Shop
    $ 55.00
    Gameroom - Decorations
    Pinball Photos
    $ 24.95
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    pinballmod
    $ 159.95
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    pinballmod
    There are 99 posts in this topic. You are on page 1 of 2.

    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