But the second place person didn’t really kick ass, they were second. The person in first is not awarded a bonus for trouncing the 3rd and 4th place players.
I understand the idea of keeping players interested in the outcome but the bonus points were the reason we changed our scoring system from the FSPA model.
Yes, there is nothing remotely good about the bonus point. It has to be one of the worst rules I have ever come across in competitive pinball.
You win! But actually you tie!!! O.o
you’ve failed to convince me how it’s good having a player walk out of a tournament in the middle of ball 2 after the other player proceeds to put up two huge scoring 10 minute long balls and then have everything delayed as the organizers have to look for the guy.
Uh, that doesn’t seem good, looking for a walked-out player.
My opinion on the FSPA “bonus point tie” is that I feel the players’ points should always decrease from one position to the next. Maybe there is a sweet spot where this could still work: if the points started 6-4-2-0 and you gave the same bonus points, you could get 6-5-3-0 instead of 3-3-2-0. I don’t think I’ll ever be convinced that 1st and 2nd in the same game can be worth the same number of points (nor 2nd and 3rd, nor 3rd and 4th).
For those unfamilar: FSPA 4-player scoring is 3-2-1-0 plus two bonus points: one point to either 1st or 3rd if 1st > (2nd + 3rd), one point to either 2nd or 4th if 2nd > (3rd + 4th). 4 player games are then scored 4-3-1-0, 4-2-1-1, 3-3-2-0, 3-2-2-1. I know some people really love these bonus points, but I’m not a fan!
The points reward superior games above the next two best scores. For both 1st and 2nd player, they both have same opportunity to ‘steal’ a point if they dominated the next two players.
In 3 player groups, player 2 can never tie player 1, so player 1 & 2 ties only applies to 4 player groups where player 2 crushed players 3 & 4. Most of the time, players 2 & 3 tie for 2 points, which gives a little relief to player 3 with that house ball : )
first, the 4-player groups only occur in the lower rungs of the C division, or B division, and the 4-player groups never appear in the FSPA playoff format. these spots probably end up being filled by players new to league play and would get those players accustomed to the notion of the bonus point awards that happen in the 3-player groups that occur in the higher rungs. there should be a strong preference towards 3-player groups especially with enough machines available.
second, the scores across the 4 games are added up to award an additional match points with the same bonus points with a tiebreaker being based on the last of the 4 games which constitutes a maximum of 4 points out of the 20 points for the match. I considered giving everyone a point for showing up, but that breaks the match point… in some cases, if someone got 1st on all 4 games with three bonus points, they still would not get the bonus point. So, any rejiggering of how the scores work also needs to work with the match bonus which I understand is there to keep players competitive through to the last game.
oh, and thanks to IFPA, PAPA, and FSPA who all have been working on making rulings on malfunctions easier!
What the match bonus is really there for is to discourage sandbagging. The FSPA format has assigned (not random) groupings, where if you win your group this week, you get bumped up a group; if you lose your group this week, you get bumped down a group. This “bubble sorts” players into groups of similarly skilled players, which is great when the players in the league have a wide range of skills. (Ya wanna talk crazy, IMHO it’s a terrible scheme when leagues randomly assign players to groups… having a group where the players have highly disparate skill levels is often demoralizing for the weak player and boring for the strong player. But I digress…) Anyway, some players were electing to throw their last game to intentionally drop to a nominally easier group next week. The match bonus points make this strategy quite a bit less appealing.
I disagree with this. There’s nothing that says we have to use IFPA rules for anything. The FSPA is its own entity and isn’t obligated to follow the IFPA in any way.
As one of the architects of the current rule, I’ll try to shed some light for those that aren’t in the FSPA and haven’t been around to participate in the debates:
Basically, if a machine malfunctions, someone is getting screwed somehow. The rule as designed right now attempts to minimize the situations where someone gets screwed. Previously loss of ball was simply considered a major malfunction, so if the machine blew up on player 1 ball 3, then all players were considered to have lost a ball, which equals one major malfunction. You need two major malfunctions to be eligible for a replay, so sorry, you’re done with a 2-ball game.
That sucked, so the rule was changed so that if you never got to play the ball at all, that is considered catastrophic and now other players on the machine have an option to replay, or keep their score. In the previous example, player 1 is still screwed since they had a ball end prematurely, but now we’re only talking about one player instead of all players.
You could make the argument that player 1 here could be offered a compensation ball on a new game, but then you get into the issues of how to deal with the “free” points they got on the malfunction ball before the malfunction. If you let the player keep them, then everyone else is at a disadvantage. But it’s not practical to remove those points somehow… so you end up with the current philosophical discussions on malfunctions.
Hopefully that sheds some light on why we treat malfunctions the way we do.
I really don’t understand this. If the machine malfunctions during Player 1’s Ball 3, what happens? From what I’m reading here, the player gets no compensation and is just hosed? I don’t agree that the player was getting “free” points on their ball before the malfunction – they should get to keep playing until they drain three times, and get whatever points they earn. Maybe I’m misinterpreting the rule.
If the machine reboots during Player 1’s Ball 3, what happens?
And yes it’s very clear you aren’t obligated to follow the PAPA/IFPA malfunction rules. I’m hopeful to understand what the FSPA rule is and why it exists.
If the malfunction results in loss of ball after the player has started the ball, the player is assessed a major malfunction. What happens depends on whether they already had a major malfunction ruling earlier in the game - if this is the 2nd major malfunction, then they have the option to keep their score or replay the game. A single major malfunction is colloquially known as “that’s pinball.” This situation is open to the most debate, but that’s how the rule is applied today.
Depends on if the scores are recoverable. If they are, I believe it would be treated as above re: major malfunctions for player 1. If not, it’s considered catastrophic for all players and everyone would replay.
Ok, so basically 1 major malfunction per game = middle finger, per player. Reboot during Player 1 Ball 3 with recoverable scores = game over for everyone.
Even during league finals?
Imagine PAPA 19 ending that way… hoo boy!
I don’t see how FSPA rules on malfunctions are anything but an early shot at defining rules that have now been outdated by more mature and evolved rules at the highest level of pinball. Nearly no one creates their own rules to that extent anymore, nor do they need to with the consolidated IFPA/PAPA rules.
FSPA rules on major & catastrophic malfunctions are overly complicated and confusing. There is a lot of room for simplification and consistency, which would also happen to align with the easy to interpret and fair rules established by the two major pinball organizations.
You might have written this before I edited my previous post, but reboot on player 1 ball 3 with recoverable scores = game over for player 1 only. Players > 1 have a catastrophic malfunction under current league rules, since they lost a ball they never got to plunge. Those players have the keep score/replay option.
I’m not saying I like this one way or the other, especially since I’m not a current league officer any more, I’m only interpreting the rules.
Yes, there’s no distinction in the rules for regular weekly play vs. finals.
I’m receptive to the FSPA malfunction rules because they can take into account when no one has the keys and when the games on location aren’t in the best operating condition. There is only one tech who maintains the pins at the location we’re using and I can’t always count on him to be there to fix problems. The league must go on.
Our support of the location in the last year has led to a threefold increase in the number of pins at that location from the prior year and now the tech trusts me with the keys to fix stuck balls, etc. The condition on the machines have improved as well as we found issues that needed to be fixed.
@bdols nailed it. Many leagues play at public locations where the league is just another bunch o’ customers at the location, and you don’t have access to remove a stuck ball, let alone repair a switch, coil, etc. Our rules have to be usable in such situations without unreasonably logjamming the entire league session. Other considerations…
In league, you play a LOT of meaningful games, far more than you’ll play in most tournaments. Any given ball might be something like 0.7% of the total balls you’ll play during that particular league season. The ratio may be quite different at a typical tournament. Therefore, in the league situation we can be a little more dismissive of the occasional major malfunction because it’s less impactful on the overall results.
All rulesets draw a line somewhere of unfortunate/unfair events that they tolerate without compensation. e.g. I believe the current PAPA/IFPA ruleset says that a failed kickback or the ball leaping over the flippers into the drain is just, as @bkerins puts it, a middle finger to the player. Stuff like that happens in pinball, unfortunately.
Major/catastrophic malfunctions just suck no matter what ruleset you use. I may have been deep in jail on ball 3, but hey, there was a malfunction and now I get to add on a ball from a new game, with lots of easy points for the taking! My opponents won’t be too pleased with that. (Of course, this cuts both ways: if I had Super Duper Mega Extreme Point Bonanza lit at the moment of the malfunction, I probably won’t be mollified much that I get to add on a new ball with nothing lit.)
Bottom line: no ruleset is perfect – not FSPA, not PAPA, not anything else. FSPA rules predate the current incarnations of both PAPA and IFPA, and I believe both of those organizations adapted some of our work into their rules. In the off-season, the FSPA officer team will have a (probably contentious 
meeting to review the latest and greatest PAPA/IFPA malfunction rules and see what makes sense for us to adopt. And we’ll keep working to try to provide the best practical player experience.
Yes, there is no logic to the madness
I think there’s definitely logic and that logic has been explained elsewhere in the thread. It’s just a decision to make, and there are multiple possible answers. It’s not the answer I would choose and that’s fine.
I think its a poor experience.
What about allowing a player to let a ball sit in a non auto plunging lane during multiball? Apparently that is legal too in FSPA. Another rule to discuss post season