I don’t see how you thought giving 16 specific people an advantage was an improvement over 2-4 people?
I wonder how much time Phil or others spent on the stream that could of been used to help test those games?
It just sounds like you guys were spread thin and tried to do to much (maybe)
Because there’s less of an advantage per person for the 16 than the amount of advantage per person for a smaller set of people that test/play most or all of the pins.
For benchmarking purposes, at OBX, how many local players have access to play the pins used in the OBX event prior to the tourney? I imagine it’s more than 2-4.
Aside from “cheating” and -isms, I think the general concerns raised and agreed upon by many people in this thread regarding the perception of unfairness are 100% appropriate for this situation. Anyone in the community should be free to say something regardless of their participation in an event. The organizers of any event can weigh the support/dissent and make decisions based on that.
In this case, the TDs are great people. I haven’t made any accusations and I don’t question their intentions or believe that there was any thought given to provide an advantage for local players. I can still hold that belief but also agree that what happened in this case does indeed give the impression of unfair advantage.
It’s a reasonable discussion to have before we resort to people backing out of tournaments as a means of expressing views on the matter.
OBX has an unfair advantage because its not a “show” but a permanent location. If you guys ran the event, it would be like a vacation from the aspect of having machines available for the tournament.
The locals aren’t very competitive, they quit running IFPA events when the $1 fee was implemented.
I don’t get this part. Who bags on the setup folks? I’ve never heard of that. For a tourney this size, obviously one person can’t do it all. What do they expect, Price Waterhouse to come in and certify the games?
If I’m playing in a large tournament, I expect there to be several setup people and I expect all of them to play in the tournament. They’re unpaid and unsung. What little advantage they gain from setting up games is well deserved.
When I helped at CAX, we usually had Jim Belsito to make the final call. His game knowledge, both mechanical and rules-wise, was invaluable. Setting up games for a large tourney isn’t easy. Games setup too hard get shoved. Games setup too easy get long lines. Get the best group of people you can and tell the complainers to play elsewhere.
One thing that worked in CAX’s favor was that the people that brought the games were generally the people doing the setup. Sounds like that’s not happening here, but if you can try to get the folks bringing games to do some prep beforehand and motivate the good ones to bring games every year, maybe you can make everyone’s job easier once the games get to the show.
Just to clarify, the complainers I was speaking of were the people who complained when there was only 3-4 people doing setup. Adam and the others complaint is valid IMO. Even if no one gained an advantage, it’s a horrible look. Shouldn’t take more than half a dozen people to setup 18 games or more.
If you’re rebuilding flippers or rerubbering games at the show, then you need your game providers to do more work before they bring the games. They should want their games to be mostly tournament ready when they arrive. Setup shouldn’t include repair.
I think it’s clear from both the comments and the actual results of the comp:
It was perceived as giving an unfair advantage to those who competed in the local final, there was no ‘upgrade’ in people’s actual finishing positions just because they played in the local final.
That should be what everyone takes from this.
In an ideal world it would be great if non competitors could play test the machines, but where are you going to find enough players of a certain skill level who aren’t’ going to want to compete?
IMO you’re not.
Some options to avoid needing 16 people to play test machines:
-Reduce the amount of machines.
-Increase the amount of TDs.
-Reduce the amount of work existing TDs are doing. For example if it takes Phil 8hrs to setup the stream, that time could be spent play testing. Either someone else can setup a stream or don’t have a stream. The focus should be on making sure the 160 participants have a fair and high quality experience while they qualify.
I don’t know how readily people donate machines in the US, but in the UK to put on a major show it is always a struggle to get any more than 60+ machines.
Personally I always make sure my machines are as near perfect as I can get them, or I won’t take them, but that’s my personal pride in my machines.
Not everyone has the same view and there are certain individuals who have been known to bring machines they have known are not working, put the legs on then walk away hoping that one of the engineers will fix it for them.
A major part of my time before any show is going round the machines just adjusting the basic things such as free play, turning extra balls off, levelling, setting to tournament mode, doing a switch test - that’s before any consideration is given to a ‘play test’. It’s normally just a quick flip with the glass off.
Then all of the machines need PAT testing before the show opens.
It’s true that so many of the donators could assist the TDs and show organisers before loading their games - it’s just a shame not all of them do.
This is all speculation, nobody knows how things would have went without the practice tourney.
ALL scores have an impact on the tournament, and other players results.
A lot of post in this and I’m doing something outside the norm and probably a bit reckless but I’m going to voice my opinion here before reading to many of them first (read the first dozen or so) to inherently not sway my thoughts further.
A little background. I competed in TPL qualifying and did not qualify (major bummer). I actually finished 12 in the Austin section only.
This is not an “exclusive” just for Texan’s event. It’s a league that was developed to grow pinball in our state and make our players better. We openly welcome others to join. All 3 qualifying locations are published in advance and we encourage others to join. In the Austin event we had several people not from Austin and even 2 from outside the US. A round trip fare is cheap these days to all 3 of these locations and the finals is always part of a major tournament that you should attend anyways. Not convenient for all but far from “restricted”.
I at first felt it was an advantage for those playing in the event. I don’t see it that way as much anymore when you look at whom qualified and whom did well.
Those trying to compare your sacrifices to what Phil and Colin did, please, I beg you, don’t go there. They have families to and spent countless hours before the event and during the event making it run as smooth as possible for you. Their trips were not free either so the only extra cost you may have from them is the airfare but how much do you think all that streaming equipment cost?
I personally:
I do not consider myself a Top player by any means. I didn’t get to play in TPL Thursday night, constantly distracted playing Tech and ran on 4-6 hours sleep each night and I still managed to qualify and finish 4th. Robert did not play in TPL, nor did Karl or Trent. To think of it in the top 16 I think only 2 players did play in TPL and they were Colin and Preston. Colin and Preston are both AMAZING players so playing in TPL or not they would 90% qualify anyway if you ask me.
This is not meant to be a poor me or bitch fest post as I wouldn’t change a thing about my participation at TPF and I’m openly going to sign up to do what I can next year to help as well again. I’m just posting my experience and view point as someone that spent considerable amount of time and energy with this event, didn’t have the so called “advantage’s” and still was able to be successful. In otherwords I strongly feel this was just a perceived advantage and really didn’t account for much of anything.
I’m not sure what your argument is?
If you can “practice” on a machine that will be used the next day in a big tournament that isn’t a perceived advantage, it is an advantage. The entire purpose of “practicing” anything is to get better on it or doing it. To have 16 folks “practice” on these machines compared to 2-3 increases this advantage to more people.
Also, no one forces anyone to buy streaming equipment or miss family events etc… Those are choices the individual makes and as we all know, being a Tournament Director is a thankless job. We do it because we love pinball and the fellowship it brings.
If you want to have a lotto or find people that aren’t competing to play test the games, good luck, that is more work and more dependence on other people who you can’t control. Its similar to asking game volunteers to have their machines fully shopped and in NIB condition when they drop the game off, good luck enforcing that. I still don’t understand why 2-3 people can’t play test games. You’re going to get complaints no matter what you do, you should do the one that gives the least amount of people the advantage and is the least dependent on others.
ZenTron - Let me ask this as I honestly don’t know. Have you ever held an event of this nature? I ask because most of your feedback is not feasible.
I could go on…
Here’s an added thought. Testing games by testing switches, tilt, pitch and making sure things score correctly is only half the battle. Anyone that knows the basics of pinball machines knows that as they get played things change as they get hotter. Would you want to play a game you couldn’t hit a shot because the flippers got weak? How about sticky flippers after they heated up? Or shots not register 100% because optos were flakey but did register with manual testing? How about have a game phantom tilt on you?
All of the above would NOT have been found without TPL. I know this as it’s just a small list of issues that were handed to me as games were played that I had the pleasure of fixing. I personally would gladly trade off having 4 people have an advantage on 30% of the games in a limited entry format.
No “one” ever runs a large circuit event, it is done as a team and I’ve been apart of this team at different circuit events.
Let me ask you some questions:
1 - Was there anything that forbid the 16 participants of TPL from competing in the TPF Tournaments? - Im going to say no.
2 - Was there anything that forbid the other participants from competing in the TPL event? - Im going to say yes.
3 - Does practicing on a game give you an advantage? - Im going to say yes
The only reason TPL discovered those issues is because the choice was made to use them to play test the games. As a TD at circuit events ive caught all those types of issues as others without running a 16 player exclusive tournament on them the night before.
I want to add, thats all we’re arguing about. We’re not arguing about people missing family events or spending money on cameras etc… All of those outside factors should be left outside this discussion.
The fact that only a few of the TPL ‘playtesters’ qualified should not be used to justify the extra practice. Any playtime on an already-setup tournament game will be beneficial to some degree, and I can’t say I care for the TPF setup and testing procedure as it is described here.
Would it be possible to schedule a small novice tournament on this finals bank to playtest? If nothing else, I’ve found that novice players are sometimes better at finding faults, since they are more unpredictable in their play.
True. Unless we remove all their scores, or they all scored at the bottom… they had an impact, and had an advantage other players did not. If someone wants to discredit that advantage, give everyone else the same number of plays on the bank they had. Otherwise… it’s an advantage.
The only argument is if it ‘had a material impact’ - and that’s a lot harder to quantify with blanket statements.
I still think the best outcome (especially if you want to look at this as a major… and its on the ‘tour’) is that setup and play-test are done by non-competitors. That means having qualified people playing meaningful number of reps on games and the TDs going through the settings/staging. As such, I’m of the camp that staff shouldn’t be competing… or if they are allowed to play, need to be DQ’d from placing/qualifying.
It’s not a Major . . . here is proof:
Bwahahaha. Josh isn’t 2nd so surely not a major.
Oh snap.LOL when I saw who was at the top of the list!
This is a no win situation. All games at all tournament have had someone playing them at some point. Case in point Circuit Finals before A-division last year at Papa. I think this is getting way blown out of proportion. No one person or group of people was/were allowed to play multiple games on all or even the majority of the tournament machines post final game adjustments. Here is my thoughts:
Steps forward for TD:
Steps for players:
See you next year…hopefully.