Right. Games can’t start having weights assigned to them.
Yeah you’re right. Borderline impossible to enforce. I guess I just think it wouldn’t be done that much that it would matter.
Also, if using this idea, I’m not sure I see how getting other randoms to play is an advantage. Yes, if you find two more people to play, and you’re in first, your score bumps up by two. But so does everyone else’s score that played that game. You may have addressed this in your 10 out of 80, 50 out of 120 point, but that flew over my head too. Haha
Unless everyone has played that machine, it would matter in that you’d push ahead of people whose entry did not include that machine.
If the system requires everyone to play every game, then it’s identical to a top down 1 point ladder format.
In a recent tournament, the results of which can be found here: http://sh.steelcitysoul.org/
I bubbled with a 3.2 average, while losing to people with 3.8 avg, 4.0 avg, and 4.6 avg. The weight of the 100/90 is almost too much to overcome and 3rd place scores are the worst return. This was a 5/7 limited herb format.
I was frustrated with my play until I looked at my averages and realized that I played pretty well. I think 100/90/85/84 is too dramatic a score boost in small field herb format. That said - I knew the format going in, and knew I needed top scores to qualify.
Thanks. I see what you’re saying now. I assumed that if there was 150 people that each game would have 150 points on down to one point up for grabs. I just seemed to me that it would make those unpopular games more popular and probably increase the average dollar amount people are dumping into qualifying as they would try more games in the bank.
Would be interested to see results of a 100 plus person tournament using this format if there are any out there
1 Like
Bowen’s point about top 10 out of 80 is more like top 10 out of 120 than it is like top 50 out of 120 [the 10/80 equivalent in this system] is the most accurate. When you look at the distribution of skill level at an event, the “expected skill level” of the 40 player difference in count between the 80-player machine and the 120-player machine is mostly at the low end. When there are significantly different numbers of players on games, it’s mostly due to low-end people who come in to play a few of the tourney games that they like or are new [and may not be out on the show floor], and ignore the harder / older / less familiar ones. The better players are the ones most likely to play more [or all] of the games in the bank. In Atlanta, for instance, the most-played-by-one-offs machine was GOT.
1 Like
Thanks for the explanation, makes sense.
Thanks everyone for the info and numbers. This is all stuff I’ll take back and try and make the event even better next year.
1 Like
Even though there’s little difference in who gets in between the similar systems, I think there’s one other practical advantage to flatter ones like 100-97-95 or 100-94-91. In the 100-90-85 system, players who are “in” but have a #1 and or #2 score often feel compelled to keep playing until the last minute “just in case someone cracks their top score,” which might bump them out. In the flatter systems, that’s not nearly as much of an issue. I think it’s better to take the top folks mostly out of the queues near the end and let those on or just below the bubble take their last shots at it. The flatter systems do that better, especially when there are no byes at stake as was the case in Atlanta.
I also thought that taking just 16 for the playoffs was a good idea. 24 players just takes too fricking long, especially for people with long drives ahead or who need to catch flights. If the player count had gone over 150, sure, take 24, but at 132, of whom only about 90 played complete 5-game entries, 16 was just fine.
3 Likes
Having a string of number 3’s in 100-90-85, 84…is almost ideal. Every score that beats your score only drops you 1 point. With a top score, losing 15 composite points from 2 higher games than yours is brutal especially if a lone number 1 score is what is holding the qualifying run together. In that case, it will have to be defended or the score(s) on some other game(s) improved upon.
Something that seems to be ignored here is that no matter what the scoring system is, there are strategy decisions to be made for that particular system.
The system used at PV3 rewarded the top 2 scores with significant bonuses. A player needing 15 points late would be well served to pick a game with a vulnerable top score and just attack that particular score, akin to swinging for the fences in baseball.
A player needing 3 points would not have to do that.
A player in my position (barely above the line with a 2nd on the card) or Timmy Street’s (similar) was very vulnerable to losing the 5 points and falling out of the top 16. So we should have been fighting hard to gain some points on weaker games to shore up our worst case scenario score late.
Each system has advantages and disadvantages for each player. The key is breaking down the system and the unique situation you find yourself in and building a strategy for that situation. There is no one size fits all
Finding that strategy is actually more fun to me than the pinball. Which I guess is good as I am adept at finding the strategy and you guys have seen me play pinball!
5 Likes
Or you could choose the play the game you are second on and waste as much time on that machine as possible to reduce the chance someone will bump you. This scoring system encourages these type of less desirable strategies.
I’ve seen this happen blatantly where the player stayed trapped unnecessarily and took valueless repeatable shots to kill time. It made me think much less of them as a competitor. I’ve also seen some less blatant fringe cases that were sketchy at best.
I see efforts to occupy a game defensively in this manner as poor sportsmanship and they should be addressed if noticed by a TD. Sure, this comes along with “determining intent”, but in the first blatant case I mentioned, the player was bragging about their brilliant strategy, so sometimes it’s really not hard to see what’s going on. Obviously part of the Herb/PAPA formats is sniping scores and knocking points off competing tickets which isn’t what I’m referring to. Just the cases where someone is killing time on a game solely to prevent players from having an opportunity to play it.
2 Likes
In this situation it sounds like you’d want to call a TD for intentional delay. This shouldn’t happen and it sucks.
On the flip side I’ve seen multiple situations in the very last minutes of qualifying where a player allowed another to “hop the line” because they knew the other player still had a chance to win.
2 Likes
They call this the Hendricks (late addition to the pinball dictionary?)…thanks again Petey @phendricks!!
If that term is to get a name, I recommend calling it the Kutheis.
At Louisville a few years ago, Scott walked away from Genesis at 11:59 after having two bad balls and gave me a chance instead of running out the clock hoping for the miracle ball.
When I walked away, I had still had time to get on another less preferred game.
2 Likes
Everyone still happy with PAPA awarding points to 87 out of 250+ scores and awarding 163+ with a zero?
These days you can qualify on a ticket with two monster scores, and three absolute crap scores in your entry whereas back in the days you coudnt afford more than one bad game on your ticket.
I feel that these days, buying a ticket and walking up to Monster Bash and start flailing away on Frankenstein and Dracula hoping for a MoR to kick-start your ticket would be a reasonable strategy compared to shooting the center shot 47 times and ending up with something like 30 PAPA-points.
My point is that the system was well balanced 10 years ago but with 2-3 times as many games being played you need to a) give out 2-3 times as many points or b) offer players 2-3 times as many machines to qualify on to keep the balance in the scoring system. Clearly, more games and less lines would be the more compelling option to me as a player.
So 20 machines and top 87 get points or keep it to 10 machines but let top 187 players get points. Any thoughts on this?
The issue with more machines has been discussed earlier. It’s a tricky puzzle especially now with more people playing and the quality of the typical player improving. Yes more games will decrease lines, but each machine added increases the overall ranking required to qualify.
Imagine 80 different machines available and 75 players in A division. Very minimal waiting, but come end of qualifying, it is possible the top 16 players all have perfect 500 scores. Player A has top scores on games 1-5, B on 6-10, etc. So to make the finals, “qualify 1st” or go home. Yes, it is extreme, but illustrates the point that more games is NOT always the answer.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out at ReplayFX for the Intergalactic Championship. Using the normal 100, 90, 85, 84…With 10 plays spread across 12 games and your best 4 will count. The top 40 will advance. There will be hundreds of players. So for instance, you might think a set of scores ranking 4th, 12th, 19th, 20th might get you in, but no. You will need to average at least 13.33 per game to qualify. Most likely you will need at least a #1 or #2 score to pad your points.
My best guess is the bubble will be right around 300 points.
I would agree there needs to be a change.
The data people presented seems very clear to me that the larger the scale (or the less 0 pointers) the more accurate the rankings.
I’d like to see PAPA move to 200 point scale given the volume of play.
2 Likes