Congrats on being named the Tournament Director! I filled out the survey.
One item that I wanted to post publicly with the thought of soliciting feedback would be the use of traditional PAPA Best Game scoring of 200-190-185-184-183…etc.
From my quick checks against last year’s event, I saw that each game was played about around ~200 unique players. (https://www.neverdrains.com/ig2019/playerIndex.php?disp=game&sel=IPC&game=17)
My personal view is that only rewarding the top two competitors bonus points on a field of 200 (1% of the players) is too narrow, especially when there’s a big percentage difference between 1st and 3rd.
At PinFest we’ve been using what I’ve coined as “97.5% Modified Decay Rate” which rewards a score in the Top 12 with an ever-increasing set of “bonus” points the further you go up the chain towards the top Spot. We’ve used the above scoring for two years. I’ve had some positive feedback on it and thus far no negative feedback (at least not any that’s been brought to my attention) and we plan on using it again in 2020. The goal is to try to incentivize going for a Top 12 score, which usually is a Top 10% score for the number of players per game at PinFest.
I saw that INDISC this year had their scoring out of 500 points with the same step down from 1 to 2 to 3 (500, 490, 485).
The hybrid that I’ve been playing with in Excel would be what I am calling the “97.5% Decay Rate + 300 Base Points” proposal. A very simple name that rolls of the tongue.
Presented graphically as a percentage of points the Top 20 positions have as a function of 1st:
If there’s a problem that I see, it’s that I think that the bonus points put an unbalanced emphasis on getting either 1st of 2nd on a game (the big dip on the Yellow and Red lines) and I think that there are more optimal ways to grade out the points to award a higher percentage of the top players, especially in a tournament of this size.
Of course, the numbers can played with to find other configurations to attempt to incentivize play for something between the Top 1% and Top 10%.
At the moment, a card of 3rd-3rd-3rd-3rd is equal to a card of 1st-8th-8th-8th. Do we consider them to be equivalent performances? Maybe we do, maybe we don’t (would be interested to hear other’s opinions). What about a card of 3rd-24th-32nd-60th (633pts) vs 1st-29th-37th-64th (634pts)? The second card makes the cut in 2019, the first one doesn’t even though it is net 12 positions better.
Alternatively, forget everything I said above, throw out any bonuses at all for 1st and 2nd performances, and do a straight-line depreciation.
It would be interesting to see if a change in points scheme would majorly shift the competitors who were in or out. Hard for me to do without doing a game-level extraction at the moment.
Wrapping up, I love how this tournament has shaped up over the past few years and each year continues to get better (and not surprisingly, more popular). Smoother registration, more qualifying time, easy-to-use interface with NeverDrains. Looking forward to the event in 2020.