Encouraging participation when the same top players tend to win

[misterschu]

@SAFBrian

The restriction prior to the event could impact the tournament’s rating, so that lower player would still receive WPPRs and receive that positive feedback in seeing their IFPA rank go up.

The tournament rating is de facto impacted by having lower ranked players only.

[85vett]

I think it’s because those invitationals are more along the lines of qualifying for events. Like the Masters in golf for instance.

The challenge with it going the other way is it could now put those higher ranked players in a major disadvantage. Let me use Texas as a way to explain myself. Right now SCS looks like this:

• Steve Bowden
• Colin MacAlpine
• Phil Grimaldi
• Mark Meserve
• Robert Byers
• Jack Revenue
• Austin Kemp
• Fred Revenue

This is the top 8 players as of today. Top 8 in Texas get a bye at SCS into the 2nd round. Let’s say I’m Kevin R (I’m actually Brad for what it’s worth). I’m out of 8th place by less than 1 point. By doing what is suggested he could make a tournament with a restriction that top 8 players in SCS are not allowed to play. He is now the top player that could possibly come, he will gain points that the other 8 can’t achieve and could easily pass into top 8 without allowing those in 1-8 to even compete.

In other words, you could use these events to fix standings.

[SAFBrian]

lolz, if it’s a thing, I’ll do a search for it.

@misterschu

The tournament rating is de facto impacted by having lower ranked players only.

Yes, it would. what I’m not really articulating well here is that could go even further, and there could be a penalty for having a closed event. Especially to avoid what @85vett says about manipulating standings. Heck, make it so only open events count towards NACS. I don’t care, but we ask the whole middle and lower skilled player base to hold up the entire operation. I’d just like to be able to throw them a bone every now and again.

It sounds like to me, this has come up before and the IFPA doesn’t want to endorse those kind of events. That’s cool, I can run things without WPPRs, I would just hate for folks to say something afterwards like, “too bad it that doesn’t count.” I’m sure there’s good reasons for that decision, and do a better look in the forums. Don’t mind me, I like to rouse the rabble.

[85vett]

If you and your players are cool with it not counting towards SCS and WPPR’s then there are a lot of things that you can do to equalize things. Spit balling a possible format:

I’m close to 400 IFPA so don’t really feel like a top player but due to current restrictions almost always at 500 I’m technically an “A” restricted player. I’d be interested in playing in some fun new formats. Maybe a beat the pro type of event. Could be like a flip frenzy event but if you beat someone that is ranked 500 (or what ever you set it at) or better you get 2 points. If you lose you still only lose 1 point. If the player rank is greater than 500 then you still only get 1 point. Could take that further to where if you lose to someone that is ______ ranked worse than you then you lose 2 points.

[85vett]

Also, don’t know how many top players in your area but it may be fun to play teams. The top player plays ball 2 and the more casual player does 1 and 3. Teams picked at random so you don’t have the best player there pairing up with the best “casual” player just to take an easy tournament win.

If you only have a couple top ranked players then maybe some sort of tag in situation. Tournament starts and everyone gets a “let the pro play” card. Then everyone plays in what ever format you chose but at any point someone can use their card and let the “pro” play their game (or ball) for that round. Could make for some good strategy but more importantly, some good ridiculing against the “pro’s” if they have a sense of humor for when they tank while playing on behalf of someone. I can just see it now. “Damn Colin… You can win Pinburg but can’t get me 25K on Nitro Ground Shaker…”

[djreddog]

@SAFBrian

But when you have the same small handful of players dominating the top of every event, I found that
more of those casuals we are trying to get in to grow the sport attend fewer and fewer events. It’s less fun when every event feels inevitable. I don’t know what the answer is, but I keep seeing it where we’ll get folks hooked for few tournaments and then once they realize they are going to get squashed by the same people over and over again, they stop showing. Maybe things would be better with an “amateur” and “professional” rankings, and more events designed or specifically capped to certain players based on rankings both for highly ranked, and less highly ranked players.

As I mentioned previously, I’m not familiar with how you run your events and I know you said you don’t think the format is really a problem, but I thought I would at least give some feedback based on my own experience as well as feedback on the First State Flippers events. And I get it that everyone will have their own opinions on why one format is better than the other but just figured I would share.

I personally can’t stand the 3X or 4X format. Maybe from a weekly league or weekly tournament it works for me it stinks. I have had the joy of driving over 2 hours to a 4 strike tournament where I went 0 for 4 in less than 2 hours and packed up and went home. I got house balled to death on 2 different EM’s for my first 2 strikes, got beat by a top player in game 3, and lost game 4 in a battle of Dr Who ramps. To me, that left a very bad taste in my mouth about competitive pinball and had that had been my first or second event ever I probably would have never played competitive pinball again. That’s my personal experience feedback, and again for a weekly league or something the strike format may be perfect but I have never participated in a league so I have no feedback on that.

As for First State Flipper events, we run 2 different formats. We either run a 7 round qualifying match play format or we run a flipper frenzy. Our event happen about once every 6 weeks and we max out at 48 people at every event due to space restrictions. If you look at the IFPA results for all of our events (about 17 total events across 2.5 years) the top 10 are pretty much the same high ranked players. Yet we continue to grow and build the scene and I think the biggest factor for us is that in every tournament I run EVERY SINGLE PLAYER MAKES THE FINALS. This is huge in my opinion. We have players who play in their first ever event, play poorly in qualifying, advance to the finals and cash in. This helps boost confidence. All of our tournaments have every player fall into either A, B, or C finals with C finals paying out between $75-100 for first place. This gives the newer or lower tiered players something to strive for. No 4 strikes and go home, but instead a chance to play a bunch of pinball all day long, advance to the finals, and then still have a chance to collect a trophy and prize money. Our B finals pays out $150-$200 for first place, again I nice prize amount for not making the top 8 and it still gives you a chance to walk away with a nice amount of money. Just some food for thought.

[SAFBrian]

@djreddog, I appreciate the feedback for sure, though I do think our priorities are a little different in regards to what we are trying to accomplish. While, I am not actively trying to discourage folks traveling to the District to play some pinball, because I think they should. But these events are really designed for DC pinball players. A lot of them do not have cars, or are not part of the larger DMV scene in general due to jobs and what not. A whole lot of our folks work in industry, and don’t have the time, and sometimes the money for bigger events just a few miles outside DC. Those folks are my first priority.

I have not run a round qualifying event, but that’s because I find those frustrating to compete in for my own personal taste. I get why folks like it, and there a pretty popular weekly in the area that does something similar. They just aren’t my cup of tea, but I’m always open to suggestions from my players, and I would run it that style if they requested it.

@85vett

Also, don’t know how many top players in your area but it may be fun to play teams.

“Top players” is relative you can look and see that person is in the top 100, and that one is in the top 500, or 1000. Or like me and a bunch of other folks that are in the 2000+ range. It’s really about watching the same 3 players win over half the events in town/state, and while that doesn’t bother me personally as a competitor, It bothers me from an organizer point a view. I can see half the field is actively hoping that 2-3 folks don’t show-up, for no other reason than they are really good and I think that’s shitty for everyone. It sucks to watch people get discouraged, and it sucks to see other people feel less welcome just because the want to compete and they are good at it. That’s why I wouldn’t mind the extra tool in my belt as an organizer, because I think it could help with that dichotomy some.

[phishrace]

I ran cash TOPS tournaments years ago and I used a simple technique to keep the top players out of events where I wanted the little guys to collect some cash. I asked them nicely to not compete in the event. It worked. The great thing about our sport is that there aren’t many jerks at the top. The better players just about always won the ‘open’ events and the lesser players got paid now and then. Ask them nicely and I think you’ll be surprised how cooperative they can be.

[bcd]

@SAFBrian

“Top players” is relative

I’ve always disliked the “top N” classification. If you’re gonna do it, I’d prefer basing it on your IFPA points instead. That should be more stable as the total number of players changes.

[SAFBrian]

I’ve thought about that, and I think they would respond positively for the most part, I just don’t want to put them in that position. I don’t think it’s appropriate as an organizer or as an IFPA rep to ask them not to show up. We don’t have nearly enough events to do that and not end up screwing with our NACS Standings.

Ok. I’m gonna stop replying for a bit. I do appreciate the feedback and suggestions, and I hope others do too.

[YeOldPinPlayer]

@SAFBrian

what I would really like is to have the ability to run tournaments where players above a certain rank would not be eligible to play in the tournament. The IFPA allows invitationals and other tournaments where players must meet a certain criteria to be eligible for the event.

Matchplay has its own rating system. No restrictions on what you can do with those. Don’t even need IFPA involvement.

I’m in favor of having some events that are fairly worthless for WPPRs but good at socializing and others that maximize TGP for those that care about SCS.

[SAFBrian]

@YeOldPinPlayer

Matchplay has its own rating system. No restrictions on what you can do with those. Don’t even need IFPA involvement.

I’m a big fan of the Matchplay system and I would really like to see it used more as an alternative to the IFPA ratings. Feel free to sign my petition in an effort to improve the ratings.

Make IFPA Results Available After a Tournament is Closed

@YeOldPinPlayer

I’m in favor of having some events that are fairly worthless for WPPRs but good at socializing and others that maximize TGP for those that care about SCS.

Man, that’s all I’m saying, for new players, or even experienced players who just have reached a certain plateau for whatever reason, some times 0.5 WPPRs is a big deal to someone. Shit, 2 WPPRs is still a big deal to me. I don’t believe in participation trophies, but I do believe in giving folks a chance to compete and win against their peers.

I’d say the IFPA is akin to England’s Football Association, they oversee competitive pinball from world championships down to the smallest bar league. The IFPA says to be official sanctioned by the IFPA, all tournaments must be the FA Cup. The FA Cup is a great tradition and its great when some local club knocks down a pro-squad, but there’s a reason there are like ten different tiers for football clubs in England, no local club wants to play Newcastle all the time.

[chuckwurt]

What if the IFPA allowed restricted events?

Say you have a tournament and only allow players below the top 1000 to compete? You could come up with a % TGP max that the event could earn. So if you’re excluding the top 1000 players you would only be able to get say 25-30% TGP value even if you did a format that was to typically get full 100% TGP value?

[WWJ]

@SAFBrian

but there’s a reason there are like ten different tiers for football clubs in England, no local club wants to play Newcastle all the time.

It’s not a great analogy because I guarantee that EVERY single team, no matter where they are placed in the football pyramid, will want promotion to the next level up. It’s skill (and moreso nowadays money) that is stopping them, not desire.

@chuckwurt

What if the IFPA allowed restricted events?

I still believe that the IFPA should release a set number of tournament formats which are eligible for WPPRs every year.
If you want to run a format that’s not included it doesn’t get any WPPRs, if you want that format to get WPPRs you submit it to the IFPA for review and inclusion the following year. Each format is given an initial WPPR value which is then only effected by the rating/quality of players who enter.

It would stop formats cropping up to purely max out TGP, regardless of the ‘enjoyment’ for the majority of players.

I’m getting a bit fed-up of running comps, which always get great feedback on the day and after - until people look at the IFPA website and see that it didn’t max out on pts.

IMHO tournaments should be fun to enter for the majority of competitors, regardless of their particular skill level.

[keefer]

I dunno, having a tourney format review yearly would really stymie tourney format innovation and much-needed iteration to perfect it. IMO.

[85vett]

@chuckwurt

What if the IFPA allowed restricted events?

Say you have a tournament and only allow players below the top 1000 to compete? You could come up with a % TGP max that the event could earn. So if you’re excluding the top 1000 players you would only be able to get say 25-30% TGP value even if you did a format that was to typically get full 100% TGP value?

In theory, OK but in actuality, look at my example above. People may say that wouldn’t happen but I’ve seen worse things being done in my short tenure in competitive pinball. Fortunately those people were caught but unfortunately, not everyone is on the up and up.

If you just want people of less skill to have a chance to win something, just have non sanctioned tournaments. If those competing are concerned about WPPR’s/SCS and wont come if it’s not sanctioned then they just need to play better or get over not beating better players. WPPR and SCS is supposed to be our world rankings and determine a players skills/abilities. While I don’t think it’s a perfect system having sanctioned events that restrict others kind of defeats the point of those systems.

Me personally, I’m tired of constantly losing and not feeling like I have a real chance of beating A LOT of players locally and being restricted to only being able to play against those players. My skills aren’t improving and thus why I’ve decided to stop traveling for things that restrict me in terms of play (A restriction for instance). As such, I’ve also given up on trying to represent my state in SCS, next year, as I can’t be competitive without going to 100% of the main tournaments in my state. So my lack of participation is not because people like Colin, Steve, Mark, Robert, Etc win everything locally (when they come) it’s because when they come I know I have a near 0% chance of winning, a much less chance of qualifying for A and I’m not allowed to play in B thus I don’t feel like I have much of a chance to even play in a finals (A,B,C,D,E, etc).

IMHO I think the restrictions are more of a problem than having the same people win everything.

[chuckwurt]

@85vett

If you just want people of less skill to have a chance to win something, just have non sanctioned tournaments.

Ime they aren’t interested in those. They want it to be worth something outside of money. WPPRs are great for that.

@85vett

Me personally, I’m tired of constantly losing and not feeling like I have a real chance of beating A LOT of players locally and being restricted to only being able to play against those players.

I think a lot of events, especially smaller ones (non majors or stern pro events) need to do away with restrictions completely. Maybe restrict who can win money, but not who can play where.

If you allowed WPPRs for these restricted events just dumb it down so the top 1000 or so are still intact. So if the players wanted to be top 1000 they would need to start participating in open events.

Just spitballing I haven’t had any players really get discouraged due to hitting a ceiling yet, but it could happen in the future.

[pinwizj]

@chuckwurt

Ime they aren’t interested in those. They want it to be worth something outside of money. WPPRs are great for that.

All players earn WPPRs at unrestricted events already? It sounds like it’s more than just ‘that’, because clearly WPPRs aren’t enough for some.

We could bring back the “Pro” and “Amateur” WPPR system alternative, where the “Amateur” system was going to specifically be for skill restricted events. Every time that idea has been floated it’s been met with a complete lack of interest.

[85vett]

@chuckwurt

@85vett

If you just want people of less skill to have a chance to win something, just have non sanctioned tournaments.

Ime they aren’t interested in those. They want it to be worth something outside of money. WPPRs are great for that.

Agreed but stacking the deck in your favor loses the integrity of what WPPR’s and IFPA (SCS and Nationals) are even meant for.

It’s almost like saying that the New England Patriots shouldn’t be allowed to play in the NFL because they have been too good over the last decade.

I know, silly analogy but, I just don’t see/understand where the fun or pride is in winning something that you stack in your favor. It’s like wanting to drag race someone, ask for 3 car lengths and then brag about your car being faster when you beat them by a bumper.

Diffidently not an easy solution to this one. Gotta make things fun for as many people as possible but also not make people feel excluded or not wanted. It’s a tight rope for sure.

[chuckwurt]

@85vett

Agreed but stacking the deck in your favor loses the integrity of what WPPR’s and IFPA (SCS and Nationals) are even meant for.

These wouldn’t affect SCS. I get that could cause all kinds of headaches to track, but just spitballing.