Very much a tangent, apologies - but have you ever written a blog/forum/guide about how you start decompiling and analysing ROMs? I’d be very interesting in reading about it 
6 Likes
I stopped using T2 after one of the Pinbrawl’s I organized in the early 00’s … 255 hits to multiball. That was enough for me as a TD.
Getaway was IFPA7 in Minnesota.
Usually it’s a bug that bites me as a TD that puts me in a situation where it makes the tournament less enjoyable for one or more of our participants. If I can minimize the chance of that happening I’ll take it.
10 Likes
Does this mean for example, if I’m crushing a machine and it malfunctions on me in a way that would normally banish it to the void, I can refuse compensation and keep the game alive? That’s very useful information if so, and I confess I can’t find anything in the Pinburgh rules about this. (Not doubting that’s the way it works, I just can’t find the stanza about it.)
Normal IFPA/PAPA rules.
Under certain specific conditions, a major malfunction may be declined by the player. This must be approved by the tournament official, and must not result in a situation which provides an unfair advantage to the player.
3 Likes
Yes, I too am interested in understanding the wizardry of Soren!
Exactly this. This seems like precisely the right situation for Daniele to decline the major malfunction. Second-hand I have heard he tried to do this, but perhaps he didn’t? I just don’t have full info on this.
Would you really decline the malfunction in this situation? Sure you lose your bonus (I think this was 150M when he drained, so you’re giving up 300M in guaranteed points from the remaining two balls) but you’re getting three balls to do again what you just did, back at square one difficulty. I’m just not sure I really see it as such a clearcut benefit.
3 Likes
Once the machine auto-launched Johannes’ ball 1, it’s a full on bug-fest that has affected both players. Would Daniele have been able to decline the major malfunction only for himself at that point?
1 Like
It would have been 620M in guaranteed points (assuming no tilt). 162M bats and 158M rats.
Ah I must have missed some of that as the bonus scrolled by. I don’t know though, even still I feel like its not a complete no-brainer necessarily.
I posted this to pinside is response to someone claiming Daniele lost 1.2bil:
I went ahead and did all the math. There is also the advantage that Daniele gained getting to his triple stack from his first Mist MB on game 2 (at 5 shots instead of 15). Johannes only had one chance to triple stack at the Mist MB 5 shot level. Daniele also got to play his first Rats and Bats again on the new game.
Daniele Acciari:
Ball 1 from original game = 2,161,897,220 (this included his Bats and Rats bonus)
Bats Bonus from Ball 2 that was lost = 162,209,380 (this assumes Daniele does not tilt or tilt warning while draining to lose this bonus)
Rats Bonus from Ball 2 that was lost = 158,250,000 (this assumes Daniele does not tilt or tilt warning while draining to lose this bonus)
Bats Bonus from Ball 3 that was lost = 162,209,380 (this assumes Daniele does not tilt or tilt warning while draining to lose this bonus)
Rats Bonus from Ball 3 that was lost = 158,250,000 (this assumes Daniele does not tilt or tilt warning while draining to lose this bonus)
Score from full game 2 = 836,379,750
TOTAL SCORE with the disadvantage of lost Bats/Rats from game 1, plus the advantage of Mist/Bats/Rats from game 2 = 3,639,195,730
Johannes Ostermeier:
TOTAL SCORE = 3,474,742,020 (this included Johannes conceding his game after hitting that final Castle Jackpot)
Weighing the advantages Daniele gained from the second game minus the disadvantages Daniele lost from the first game against Johannes conceding his game while in a position to continue hammering out 300mil Castle Jackpots and 30mil shots everywhere . . . I’m completely confident in saying that the better player won that particular game.
9 Likes
With major malfunctions to both players at the point of intervention the option to decline major malfunctions was not approved by TD staff (allowable per the rules).
Our goal at that point was to make sure that Dracula was functioning properly. I’ve seen ball count problems before on mine that always seem to be fixed when power cycling the game. They don’t always seem to be fixed when the current game is still in progress.
For us to deem that Dracula as a worthy machine of crowning a champion that testing had to be done before allowing play to continue.
For anyone that would have handled it differently, great. I felt completely confident with how we handled it and I didn’t even have to claim this paragraph in the rules to feel good about it:
“Final authority for any ruling, including rulings that contradict or vacate anything written in this document or in other IFPA materials, rests with the President of the International Flipper Pinball Association, Josh Sharpe.”
8 Likes
I completely agree with this reading of the rules. If Johannes’ ball was still in the shooter, then I can see offering Daniele the opportunity to decline. However once his ball autolaunched then it is no longer just Daniele’s malfunction, it is Johannes’ as well. There’s no clean way for Daniele to decline anymore at that point.
4 Likes
It can be if you treat it as two separate malfunctions. Daniele gets premature end of ball, Johannes gets autolaunch.
1 Like
Just to add some data points - as I came out of the broadcasting booth to tech the game during the malfunction.
I have very intimate knowledge of BSD, its mechanics, all of its assemblies and common physical problems.
IMO, having put thousands of games on BSD, and having torn a few BSDs down to the harness, I felt at the time, (and still do), that their was a high likelihood that the malfunction was mechanical in nature (i.e. on/under the playfield).
Was it a one-time trough failure? Was it a bad trough switch? Was it a switch matrix problem? Was it a mist up/down ramp issue or broken wire? Who knows, but all of those and many more were possible.
Also note, that this BSD was no collector queen, It wouldn’t have surprised me if it had been in a fire at some point, and played like it was in the 3000’s+ of games since the last deep shop out. It was quite possible some of its assemblies were getting critical.
We had to determine the game was in a functional state to continue.
Testing consisted of reproducing game state, checking trough state draining different levels of # of balls in play, assembly testing, trough testing switch matrix testing, vibration testing, long-beam opto testing and mist testing. All checked good.
I came away from testing feeling that it was a one-time mechanical issue and the odds of it popping up during the next two games to be slim.
The ruling imo was 100% on point. It played out the way I would have wanted it to if I was either player in the match.
27 Likes
If a player declines a major malfunction, does that prevent the game from being tossed if it happens again? Are you just declining the remediation, or is it treated as if the malfunction never happened at all?
What’s all this then?!!!
Like 3 of my friends claim there was a stuck switch ringing up ramp hits and multiball jackpots (left ramp?) before the fun with bonus malfunction.
IS THIS TRUE?!
If so, how high up does this coverup go?!
(I’m too lazy to go over it myself right now so I just thought I’d throw this meaty bone out there and hope some of the instigators show up to gnaw on it)
They couldn’t repro though
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/436578432?t=06h29m43s
here’s about the time where the phantom ramp shots begin: those delayed 10 million call-outs threw raymond and cayle at first ( Cayle even mentions something about a stuck switch), but Daniele was hitting those left ramp shots…but after those first 6, you can definitely see a couple unearned 10 millions from nothing.
I think it was the right call, and Johannes despite dumping at 3.4 billion was primed to easily casual flip his way to another billion.
Reminded of the NYCPC Rolling Stones that was pulled with crazy switch matrix problems. Getting ahead of it and power cycling the game and testing the switch matrix was the prudent thing to do, to ensure the game was actually functioning properly and the result would be fair and not held to even greater scrutiny if Daniele was awarded phantom switch hits or what have you. It did deprive Daniele of 800 million in bonus but there were TWO malfunctions for both players so IMHO they had to check the game.