The interest in WPPRs is the leverage we’re using to implement this.
If there’s enough interest in players wanting to earn WPPRs and follow their world ranking then this will work. If there’s not then we’ll quickly learn that as well.
I’m mostly interested in seeing how it’s implemented at the TD level. For example at Pin-Masters we won’t be charging an additional $1 per player. Like the Circuit fee we will take it out of the prize pool (so only the winners at the event subsidize).
I would imagine most larger tournaments go that route, but in insanely curious to see if my Pinburgh entry fee goes up $1 in 2018
“The objective of the International Flipper Pinball Association (IFPA) is to elevate the awareness and visibility of pinball across the globe and generate media coverage and corporate backing to bring the sport of competitive pinball back into the spotlight.”
I believe this plan helps us long term in achieving the first sentence of our mission statement.
Am I right? I have no f*cking clue
Are we gonna find out? You bet your ass we are
We’ve tried many science experiments over the years at the IFPA. Some have worked, some haven’t, but I always have the best intentions of pushing the sport forward in a positive way.
This is our next experiment and it lasts about 12 months.
Judging from the comments here, I’d imagine that places like Portland, NE Ohio, and NYC that already have a stranglehold on the SCS of their respective states, will continue that dominance because it sounds like there’s a possibility that the areas with less events will have less of an incentive to run IFPA endorsed events.
Players that live in WPPR deserts will have an even harder time moving up the ranks because events in those “deserts” will be less likely to have an IFPA endorsement, so we could see an even larger shift in the geographical imbalance.
I don’t foresee any of the weeklies in the Cleveland area (at times, there are three of them that are in the range of 10-20 WPPRs per event and there will be a fourth starting later this month) shying away from IFPA endorsements based on the $1 fee, but if you ran a weekly in Cincinnati, why would you even bother?
Everyone down here is too busy playing dollar games but seriously, we have just one good location, and most competition takes place in the two local home-based leagues, which provide a fraction of the points of the weeklies.
What if players that finished 1st through 5th don’t submit their $1? So that means the 6th place player shows up as the winner on IFPA? That seems misleading and lame. On the same note, what if I get a result I’m not happy with? So I decide not to contribute my $1 so as not to get put on the results. That also seems quite lame.
If I may put in two cents (don’t worry, I’m not putting them in the coin slot)…
I run occasional small tournaments. They are entirely charity tournaments, with no prize pool. It’s something I do because I want to support the charities involved, and this is a way I can put my passion for pinball to work for the cause. I doubt I’ll stop doing it. I also doubt I’ll stop getting IFPA/WPPR endorsement, since there are enough players who won’t come without it that I would certainly come out behind. I regret the position this will put me in, though. I am either going to have to raise the price for my tournaments (which will mean I can no longer advertise all entry fees as going to charity, will result in an annoyingly “un-round” number, and might annoy casual players), or reduce the tournament’s donation to the charity. Or, I suppose, cover it myself, but I put a non-trival bit of my own money into organizing and promoting the tournament already (e.g. paying for trophies). With all due respect: it’s not a very exciting prospect, however I work it out.
A bigger prize pool could really generate some media interest in our hobby.
I’m guessing there has been some estimate at what sort of prize pool this would generate for the US National Pinball Championship, but I haven’t seen anyone mention it yet.
Then the TD contributes the $1 required from the prize pool and everyone gets included, problem solved.
We don’t care where the $1 comes from, as long as the number of players submitted matches the total paid, we’re good. It’s up to TD’s to decide if there is enough value for them or not, they can pull it from the prize pool, increase entry fees, pay it themselves or not sanction the event.
This will also make TGP calculations a nightmare. You will have the extra variable of unpayed players in the expected games played since those games will not count.
Also careful on your direct play and advance 10%-50% rules. I guess you can hold 2 finals, once for the trophy and then one for the points afterwards.
Or you can pay the $1 and all those headaches go away…
It’s only another layer of administrative headache if you choose to make it a headache. It becomes really simple if you either:
A) Pay the $1
B) Don’t
You just make it harder on yourself playing the opt-in, don’t opt-in game with individual players.
But yes all the regular IFPA rules are still in effect, if you have 20 players, and take 10 to finals, but you want to make your life harder and only 10 of them paid $1 so you only submit 10 people, you would have issues with our 50% participation rule.
Agreed. But I’m not going to chase everyone down for a dollar. Nor do I want to tax the novice players. I think the best of all the bad solutions is just make the winners pay.
“Congratulations on your win. Now, fork over the 30 bucks!”
