Merits of custom ROMs vs. original software


It has been almost 3 years. Glad to see you don’t hold onto a grudge for too long. :slight_smile:


Added a notch to my belt at Indisc :smiley:


/End Thread.


Story, please. :slight_smile:


I think that is the only rational option at this point.


I know they had to replace the transitor on IM board a couple time, i am not sure if it was after @cayle played though? :slight_smile:


That was the deed.

Blew on the left after a good ol trap :slight_smile:


I vaguely remember @pinbwzrd mentioning you melted it after trapping on the left for 10 minutes :wink: He may have exaggerated :smiley:


At least I found the reason…badly adjusted eos!


Oh stern, you so silly.


Mr. Sharpe, I am curious. When Francesco was short circuiting the WPPR, why was the response not mearly “Oh look, he found the thing” :wink:

Embrace pinball, lads.

Nobody is screwing up scoring for the fun of it. All the people I know who are tweaking rules are doing it with passion for pinball, under careful considerations and hard work.

And messy rules will not find any usage anyway. So do not worry. Brilliant modifications to wonderful playfields hopefully will.

And by the way, the proper treatment for Medieval Madness is not to divide castle scoring by ten. But the following.

a) Destroying the castle gate in multiball, will have it staying down. When this level is reached, the gate will go up once the multiball ends.

b) Have Merlin give me what I need.

c) Have Troll targets active in multiball. (50/50 on this one)

The a) tweak will need to have proper support on the DMD and sound feedback in order to have the player realise what is going on. I vote for “None shall pass”.


Barnyard scoring x10.


We have situations with the WPPR system that end up with the potential for an UNPLAYABLE system (where I think fixes are NECESSARY), and situations where we can make things “better” by subjectively choosing to make a tweak.

Francesco’s Super League if left alone would have destroyed the system, so the system would have become one of the blackballed tournament games that nobody uses anymore. In those situations I welcome software modifications 100%, as I mentioned in my previous post.

I’m not saying that either side is right or wrong here . . . all I’m saying is that I believe there’s validity in the arguments from people on both sides.

I’ll disagree here and go with the changes Lyman would prefer to make :wink:

In all seriousness I think this is the issue at hand. A group of people think “divided by 10 on the castle” would work fine. A group of people think your a/b/c solution would work fine. Lyman has his solution that would work fine. Another group of people thinks that increasing the multiball scoring would work fine. And on and on we go . . .

Any statement of something being “the proper treatment” is a joke. There is no “proper treatment”. There’s subjective opinions on what select groups of people think would make the game better. I think that’s where this debate gets into the weeds a bit.


Another solution is score based Pin Golf or Pin Bowling tournament formats. If there are concerns about this being more labor intensive for referees, then have Scorbit audit balls used to achieve the target score and then assign the number of balls used to get the target score to the player’s golf/bowling score for that game.


I also don’t really subscribe to this notion that long-playing games are bad for competition.

It’s bad when your venue has a hard close time and you need the tournament to finish by a certain time or risk not being able to finish the tournament at all and having to do an 8 way tie for first because the arcade shut off the power at 10pm.


That seems like a planning issue and not an indictment of the games themselves. If you’ve still got eight active players at closing time, then you didn’t start early enough or you took too many people.

Even with those issues aside, what do you do if someone decides to grind on a game and you run up against closing time? The answer to that should not be “you can’t play that way.”


If you have to plan your tournament around longer playing games, that reduces the amount of players or the amount of TGP you can have in the tournament, and thus negatively affects WPPRs.


Absolutely this. There is no distinction between 4% TGP for a game of Genie vs 4% TGP for a game of LoTR. That is just the way the system is right now. If I can get 7 or 8 games into a few hours vs. 3, I’m going to lean towards 7 or 8 games. This is one of the reasons Flip Frenzy is getting traction, along with the bounded and consistent downtime.

There is a balance and sure you can throw a longer-playing game in once in a while, but it’s just not feasible to run an event that gets something for TGP and wraps up at a reasonable time if you regularly allow games that take more than two minutes per ball. The events I run typically have 10-20% SCS- and WCS-league players and as fun as it is to see world class play, just…no. Long playing games are out.


Now if you have an entire several days and a dedicated venue that can stay open as long as you want, sure, then it might be fun to throw an “endurance test” tournament - have an entire field of LOTR, Hobbit, Spider-Man, Earthshaker, Data East Star Wars, etc.

Just make sure all the games have fresh new flipper coils before it starts.


I can appreciate wanting to maximize TGP. I personally don’t care about such things, I want to have fun, whatever the format is. Short-playing games can be fun if they’re supposed to be that way, like EMs. They are absolutely not fun when moderns are eviscerated. You don’t really get a chance to enjoy the build-up in the game when it’s “miss one shot and you’re dead.”