Modern 2017 super league format?

[hisokajp]

@pinwizj

I’m waiting for any good players at Pinburgh to intentionally skip session 10 so they can be removed from the standings, and save their IFPA Rating from getting demolished

already had that in our month league… someone happy not to be “meaningful” so their rating wouldn’t go down (@johnnyfive)

[hisokajp]

@pinwizj

Correct. It is possible of course for last minute casual people to cause a group of players to not be counted.

The example Becker and I were going through was a tournament like INDISC:

If you have your best 6 games counting, you’re fine to include anyone that plays in 5 out of 6 games until the 84th player signs up and plays even 1 game.

Once that 84th player participates, playing 5 out of 6 games would only hit 83.3% participation, so anyone that played 5 out of 6 would now NOT be counted.

Looking at INDISC 2017 (https://neverdrains.com/2017/playerIndex.php) it looks like going from current 50% rule to new %100 rule (since more than 100) player would only disqualify one more people. In this kind of tournament, especially in dedicated location so people only come for it, most people play the whole way not a lot of non-meaningful player.

[pinwizj]

@heyrocker

The great thing about this is that there will always be someone (somehow it is always someone who isn’t winning) who cares enough to act as the enforcer for their region and turn in events that aren’t keeping in line with the rules.

This 100%!

At 3500 events per year, the only thing we can do us trust our IFPA endorsed TD’s that they are doing the right thing. I’m not about to double check anyone’s work.

Believe me we have plenty of player “moles” all over the world that are constantly challenging results that they see posted to the rankings, whether it’s simply TGP related, or whether the event shouldn’t have been endorsed at all.

[pinwizj]

@hisokajp

Looking at INDISC 2017 (https://neverdrains.com/2017/playerIndex.php) it looks like going from current 50% rule to new %100 rule (since more than 100) player would only disqualify one more people. In this kind of tournament, especially in dedicated location so people only come for it, most people play the whole way not a lot of non-meaningful player.

Yep. We looked at Magfest as well, and as you can imagine with the more casual based nature of that tournament there was a larger number of players that would have been pulled from the standings for not playing all the qualifying games. Still not a ton either way.

[timballs]

@hisokajp

you know what the final format was? with only 8 games during qualifiers they need another 48% TGP from the finals right?

I don’t, sorry.

[zvrabes]

[quote=“jdelz, post:37, topic:2383”]Sure, there are some of us who stay on top of this stuff, but I’d imagine it must be a nightmare for you guys on the back end with TDs who either aren’t aware or are just too lazy to check all the boxes when new changes come out.
[/quote]

I just dealt with this exact situation! As an experienced TD and a highly organized person, I get asked to help out a lot with other Portland pinball events, and I gave the league TD a heads up on how WPPR formula changes would impact our Selfie League. He doesn’t follow pinball forums or FB discussions and otherwise wouldn’t have been aware of or implemented the changes. A bit of constructive feedback for @pinwizj, it is a NIGHTMARE to find the WPPR formula rules on the IFPA website. (Also the Search feature is busted.) Could there be some sort of email announcement to TDs who have run tournaments in, say, the past calendar year to give them a heads up regarding WPPR changes?

[nudgey]

[shameless plug] Heeeeey. I’m running a direct-play tournament at Modern this Sunday. And it’s for charity! [/end shameless plug]

There used to be a weekly league that involved direct group matchplay but sadly that got canned for unknown reasons (perhaps not enough people showing up?)

[pinwizj]

@CFFLegs

A bit of constructive feedback for @pinwizj, it is a NIGHTMARE to find the WPPR formula rules on the IFPA website. (Also the Search feature is busted.) Could there be some sort of email announcement to TDs who have run tournaments in, say, the past calendar year to give them a heads up regarding WPPR changes?

Rankings Information – 2024

The “Info” link on the WPPR toolbar at the top of the homepage is always linked to our current rules.

I’ve found in the past that any mass email with changes get lost in the noise. It’s only in one-on-one interactions with the TD over email are we able to really communicate how our system works (often through inadvertent error by the TD).

@PressStart can chime in if he feels differently since he’s going back and forth with TD’s about as often as I am these days, but it’s definitely a hot mess of complicated stuff we’re dealing with.

I personally don’t mind the hand holding with TD’s in those one-on-one interactions . . . it’s why I’m here

[zvrabes]

I mean, I know how to find it, but if you don’t basically live on the IFPA website, clicking a little button that says “Info” in the second header bar is a little counter intuitive. Even when I was trying to find the page to prove to this guy that the formula really had changed and it wasn’t just a random dude impersonating you on a forum, I struggled to find it, looking instead under the first-level header categories (Tournaments, Players, Resources, etc.) and he definitely wouldn’t have found it without me.

[pinwizj]

Sorry for the confusion. I blame myself on you not understanding we have a 30 day rule for our calendar submissions

[zvrabes]

SOMETIMES MONTHS HAVE DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF DAYS, JOSH.

[hisokajp]

@pinwizj

The “Info” link on the WPPR toolbar at the top of the homepage is always linked to our current rules.

maybe “info” is a bit too vague? Renaming it something more like “Ranking Rules” or something else better by somebody with an actual brain?

[skov]

Seconded, for some odd reason I always grab for the “Resources” link first

[pinwizj]

Added “WPPR Rules (v5.3)” to the Resources tab.

Requested Shepherd to change “Info” to “Rules” on the WPPR toolbar.

[hisokajp]

Nice!

Have you ever thought about doing a national tour of pinball show to present a WPPR Format seminar?

[pinwizj]

@hisokajp

Have you ever thought about doing a national tour of pinball show to present a WPPR Format seminar?

I’ve petitioned the local university to actually make it a class that the kids can take for credit

[haugstrup]

I have it on my 2017 list to streamline IFPA submissions for TDs who use Match Play Events, but to be honest I don’t think I can do it. The requirements for when to exclude players from the submission are getting more and more opaque. Is there any way IFPA can create a step-by-step guide on how to determine which players to exclude from the submission?

It could be a flow chart or a list of bullet points describing which actions to take and in which order. TDs can use this manually or us software people can use it to write an algorithm on top of.

[Brian]

Sounds like the IFPA needs a PM.

[pinwizj]

@haugstrup

Is there any way IFPA can create a step-by-step guide on how to determine which players to exclude from the submission?

Based on the qualifying requirements of a league/tournament:

50 or fewer players = Anyone that doesn’t participate in at least 50% of all qualifying requirements must be removed from the standings.

Greater than 50 players = Same rule, except % is equal to the number of players. (74 players = 74%, 61 players = 61%, etc)

Unless I’m missing something (which is totally possible), that’s the extent of the opaque requirements to excluding players from the results submission into us.

[haugstrup]

I get that part. It’s the “qualifying requirements” that confuses people (or just me)