Bad Girls @ INDISC

I was catching up on some podcasts. On the Trible Drain, Neil McRaes was on with a lot of interesting stuff. Amongst an explaination of the zero point ball of Travis Murie on Bad Girls at INDISC. And that the game is treating the plunge-over differently in a multi player game to a single player one.

I found that to be a little unlikely, to be honest. Or seen the other way around. I wanted proof that someone really went ahead and did something this advanced. And see if I could find a reason for doing so. And decided to check it out.

Neil, I am sorry, but you are wrong. The game allows for two no-switch drain and re-plunging per ball-in-play. After this it goes to next ball-in-play. And this is regardless the number of players on the game.

I have to advice caution on trusting this. Because if the outhole kicker is failing or half failing (ball rolling back to the outhole) after a deliberate drain, you can loose your turn right off.

Please note. Playfield validation is dependent on switch hits. And not points scored. So a zero point ball can be explained by a switch activated which has no points giving logic tied to it. And that this switch could be activated from vibration etc. when it was not suppose to.

Also, someone on commentary mentions three switches. The three (different) switches logic was introduced on Williams games circa 1994. Before this and after this on other systems, it is one switch only. But individually from model to model switches can be excluded from this rule. And likewise, on the 3-switch games, switches can be defined to give instant validation.

Calling @neilmcrae @Potatoloco @martymainframe @PinballProfile


Just don’t get cute on Bad Girls. Haha

Well, that kind of sucks! I’ll have to take a look at that as well. Does seem unfair.

So you are saying the behaviour Travis saw is the expected behaviour in all situations?

Probably is best to just have the game never advance for a zero ball, or do it every time.


I’m guessing they did this so the game would end rather than endlessly try to relaunch the ball, overheating the coil and blowing the transistor. Although with GTB… there’s probably a fuse just for that coil.


It is. And I would expect for other Gottlieb games of same era. Although that is pending confirmation. Not all games are zero switch possible/tempting though.

1 Like

I am just curious how this syncs with Travis and Neil’s observation of the single player behaviour. I can understanding feeling like you plunged 10 times but in reality it was 2.

1 Like

Strange one - I tested it and got that behaviour but I didn’t do a long extensive test. I have a S&S on the way to me soon so I’ll try again! But happy to stand corrected!

1 Like

I’m pretty sure I plunged three times when I tested it but I like the fact that it’s 2 and you are dead saves loads of plunge and wait agony and as a TD the clock is always ticking!

Surf’n’Safari is System 3. Whether or not that is the reason, it does not go to next ball-in-play with the same test as I did on the baddies.

But teasing it long enough with re-launch looping it will go into an error state. “Ball stuck call serviceperson”. And it will NOT leave this state again for current game. This is news to me. Ha ha. I wonder if this ranks equal to a slam tilt?

1 Like

In qualifying I played the game twice and for sure short plunged more than twice on the same ball getting it back. It’s something I purposely checked, thus wasn’t expecting it in a multi-player game. Not saying it’s normal or not normal behavior, because at the end of the day, I don’t know as I’m not familiar enough with the pin. We did check it after the event and got the same result for a single player and multi-player game. Either way, is what it is, being a meme > world champion :smiley:


On INDISC copy, we literally checked it post-tourney: single player game let you invalid plunge more than three times, seemingly unlimited. Multiplayer game: 3rd one you’re done and joining Travis in the 00 club.

1 Like

This is a weird one. Nothing indicates what you guys report. Which I have every reason to believe is correct. Pending further investigation.

i confirm, i saw that verification happens post-facto-

Personally I wish more games did this, three strikes and you out instead of short plunging a hundred times trying to get to your shot.

and some games have switch in the shooter lane (not the bottom one) that = Playfield validation

what happens if you do the waterworld bug and then the game can maybe get’s lost about it’s status of balls in play. It is not any Playfield validation tricks but more like makeing shots.

Or any other long ball search on system 3 that puts up Ball stuck call serviceperson?

Is Ball stuck call serviceperson an hard lockup on all systems 3? (as games where build with interlock = kills all power)

Making rules like doing X on game Y = DQ or zero

  1. Is iffy to enforce
  2. May need an full time game judge / need video review for borderline cases or very hard rules that ban doing Z just for that game (but can be done on any other game) to cut down on any thing borderline from being an issue.
  3. May need an game replay rule for cases on where an TD / tech make that happen or where it’s to hard to make an call of DQing someone.
  4. May need to do an big talk about on this game you can’t not do X and when X is an long thing to explain / need Q&A can lead to time issues.

Well. All the logic regarding re-serving balls to shooter lane is precautions that the game really do not go to end-of-ball unless it can fairly judge that the player was playing and was draining. To avoid premature = unfair loss of ball-in-play. Like ball bouncing back into the trough, ball(s) rolling in the trough tripping many successions of switch(s) close-open-close… and worn switches that can jitter states or trip from vibration.

You can say that 3 strikes and similar limiting logic is a good. And would be preferable for high level competition play. But it will/would have to be on top of safe switch input evaluation.

The game must treat players fair. And not give them a reason to complain and demand their money back. Some designers (cough Williams) was more conscious about this than others. Building their game logic robust. In the early 1990s with ball saver and auto plunging thrown into the mix. They chose to go to three unique switches hit to determain ball in play.

Another example. I was once studing the trough logic on a System 11 game. And those switches needs to be closed continuously for a lot longer than other switches in order for that state to take effect. I do not remember exactly but it might be upwards a full second. Where as other switches are normally 2 ms.

1 Like