The reason for the PAPA format (ex-format) is not commonly used is not because it is a bad format. It is because it is a top level format. Both for skill, tournament experience and hours of qualifing possible. Which is why - it is (was) the PAPA format. The status of a top level event.
Plus it is an unlimited buy-in format, which by itself brings a bad taste in some regionals and skill divisions.
I played in C at PAPA19. The possibility of winning prize money doesnât affect my decision to attend an event at all. I just enjoy the competition and camaraderie. The cost of traveling to an event (not to mention the cost of taking 3-4 days off of work) dramatically exceeds any entry costs, regardless of format. I understand why people think Herb style favors deep pockets, etc. But if I take off of work, fly across the country, get a hotel room, rent a carâŠetcâŠIâm going to play as much as possible. Iâm not going to sit around just to avoid the $5-6 cost for another ticket. That said, I realize that in that format, Iâm subsidizing the prize money for the better players. Thatâs not ideal, and seems to deter new players from joining the tournament scene. I certainly prefer that this be more like the WSOP. Everyone should pay the same entry fee.
But then some people can and do drop down out of A due to their ranking dropping below the cut line and not having qualified in A the year they moved up; one year and you can drop back unless you choose to play A anyway. The âAâ restriction criteria may have more to do with the headcount in A than other things do.
All said, though, I canât see growing A much beyond where it is now. At Pinburgh, you play well, you get A. At PAPA, you choose ahead of time. If youâre not in the top 200, I can see why people would rather play in B - - cheaper, better chance of winning something. Whether itâs tickets OR Herb, I donât think many more people will try A than do now. Minor growth, yes, but nothing huge. Overall growth A+B+C+D, yes, but more in B, C and D.
What would grow A? Something where B players thought they had a better chance than now of qualifying and or winning. But that something would mean itâs less likely that the cream rises to the top, which is what the current A players want. EPCâs one-shot runs give B players a better chance, but I donât see that being popular here.
It would be interesting to see who played what if each division, including Classics, was 100% self-funded for prize money, i.e. all entry fees, of whatever different values, stayed within that division.
I am curious about finances. People here speculate in the need for PAPA to grow the turnover.
However, I was under the impression, that the PAPA/Replay structure did return every $ spend at their tournaments as prizes to the players. Isnât this correct?
So, and if so, a need to increase the turnover would be rooted in a need to increase the prize pool. Which I fail to understand, really, as there seems to be massive interest from both top level players and in general. Growing each year.
Plus, in the traditional system, players would pay for attempts they would later choose to discard.
If the goal is to increase the money spend, and with the infamous lines in mind, and if the traditional format is not sacred, I guess bumping the machine banks to double or triple sizes would do the trick.
I have never seen any communication that PAPA returns all entry money as prizes to players.
One thing I see when people are talking about finances here is the assumption that the prize pool is the tournamentâs only expense. I think that is incredibly naive. I would not be surprised to learn that the money raised by the event doesnât even cover the costs to simply open the space to the public, much less the prize pool. Internet, electric, water, garbage, insurance. All are serious expenses (and remember that many of these get paid year round because its not like the facility just goes dark other than these four days a year.) That isnât even touching issues around game acquisition and maintenance.
Iâm easily as bummed as anyone about the change. My first PAPA was 5, and for about ten events there I went every single year I could (moving overseas and finances rendered it more difficult recently.) My memories of these events are some of the best I have. However if PAPA wants to continue into the future indefinitely, which I think we all want, it needs to be self-sustainable and I applaud the groupâs efforts to reach that goal.
Edit: Iâm not sure if the 1023 form was filed or the 990-PF for Fiscal Year 2015. Regardless, the information is public and obtainable to a certain extent.
I think saying this is insulting to the agency of everyone involved. Itâs absolutely OK to be âincredibly disappointedâ or feel that the change is a âgreat shameâ. The other two are maybe a little less respectful but I think itâs not hard to understand that people will be sad when a unique highly skillful format bites the dust, especially in favor of a format that seems to repel casuals/novices like"Off!".
The real insult is that weâve never made a change (or decision) people didnât complain about. Iâve listened to more people crap all over the PAPA format in the last several years than I can count. It was literally one of the lowest rated formats in our surveys. I have e-mails from probably a dozen people in this exact thread who have privately suggested major changes over the years because they werenât happy with the format or how things have been done.
These changes were enacted primarily due to both player responses and financial concerns related to the old format, and quite frankly, as a member of this community, itâs disgusting to me that after all PAPA has done and given (and all the money it has LOST attempting to grow pinball) that it still doesnât ever get the benefit of the doubt. Also, the PAPA format isnât some higher calling; itâs a pinball format, and itâs been changed MULTIPLE TIMES throughout the years for various reasons.
If anyone wants to talk to me, you know my e-mail or phone. I cringed when someone sent me this link, and now Iâm officially done with feedback on forums. The signal to noise ratio sucks.
For those of us that arenât top-A players, it is most definitely not fun to finally get a good score on those super-tough PAPA machines and then watch it get completely wasted by the rest of a ticket. This change gives players instant and permanent satisfaction when they have a good game.
And thereâs another reason the old format wasnât much fun. Once you get past the novelty of âhey, Iâm competing in A against the best in the world!â it feels like just flushing money down the toilet when youâre locked to A with no realistic chance of qualifying. With this change, you can make meaningful progress towards a final set of six games and not feel like you have to catch lightning in a bottle, or feel like youâve wasted $25 when you tank the first two games on a ticket.
Really, the top players are still going to qualify, nothing is going to change there. This is more about the rest of us.
Zeroes arenât a concern for me. I was just responding to the belief that isnât as true as it was in the past that the PAPA format required maximum consistency.
It would seem that all you are doing is making it like almost any other tournament. Just cause something is different doesnât mean itâs bad. It would seem that the pressure of a 5 game run would be better to determine the best player at the time as opposed to being able to keep playing unlimited games without the pressure of have a bad couple games.
Go Lefkoff! Nuanced as frig. Itâs understandable if you need to pay the bills. Pinburgh killed your attendance. I would suspect that this isnât going to make it any more âfunâ. People are just going to drop even huger bombs with multiple attempts, still will be frustrating for the mortals. Maybe it will work who knows. If itâs about making it more âfunâ for everyone just do 2 Pinburghs a year lol. 300 spots at the old facility, to get in auction style, highest bidders get in. Youâll make millions.
We used PAPA classics format for Vancouver Flip-Outâs classic tourney last month. It was new to most players in the area, but seems like it was very well received. @kdeangelo got DTMâs virtual queuing to work with PAPA classic format, and it worked without a hitch!
I donât know who is providing the ânot-funâ feedback; certainly not my perspective. I havenât missed a PAPA since PAPA 3, and that more difficult and challenging format is one of the things that has drawn be towards that specific tourney year after year. Iâm sad to see it go.
I donât really have a preference to the format. To me, both styles (Herb and PAPA Format) both classify as âpump 'n dumpsââmany players are going to be spending stupid kinds of money at either format. Have a bad game in a Herb? Well, youâre going to be paying to play it again. Have a bad ticket in the PAPA Format? Youâre going to be buying a new ticket.
My favorite change is the fact that all the games will be on Free Play. Part of the reason to go is to enjoy the PAPA collection, easily one of the largest out there. The door entry is pretty negligible to me since Iâll easily spend that in a day on random games in the building.
Iâd like to echo othersâ suggestions for a queue system. I have experienced these at various events and the result is a much more enjoyable experience, because I can actually go and do things while still technically waiting in line (like enjoy the other games there as mentioned above). Hopefully this can be implemented in future PAPA iterations.