I dunno, I’m not seeing it. If I have to pay $125 to enroll in the series and I have to miss a few events because of work, life, anything really… does this torpedo my chances of qualifying? I can’t predict what my schedule is going to be for the entire year. What’s the advantage of essentially pre-paying for 12 tournaments over the course of a year, versus just choosing and paying for the ones I want to?
In a way, we already have a tournament series for qualifying for States - the current system, where you play as much as you can/want, anywhere you want, and if you are good enough you qualify. This system does have some flaws currently, such as quality vs. quantity. I will agree that people simply pounding out weeklies for small points doesn’t necessarily represent the “best of the state” and I hope that gets looked at.
It’s not true right now yes. But the reason I started this thread was kinda to point out that if 2018 has serious bucks on the line for SCS then it could become an issue. Right now, in my state 1/4 of the top sixteen fall in the category of “grinders” or out-of-staters. That is a big deal if there is thousands on the line. I do not think it is fair to use the curent model as a reference point considering the major changes that are coming up.
So what constitutes a “grinder”? At how many events does a person make themselves not worthy of being a finalist and move to “grinder” status?
At the same time the opposite end of the spectrum is the true “non-grinder”. This out of state person comes in one time, drops a bomb, and 6% of the time they return to the state for the SCS from that result. It’s clear this person is also not worthy of qualifying.
So that leaves people who don’t play too little, and people who don’t play too often.
The only solutions I see to that are instituting a minimum AND maximum number of events.
Minimum number - easily defeated by anyone interested in meeting that total
Maximum number - every “capped” version of the standings I’ve run have still allowed those grinders to qualify based on just their “best 20”
I understand the money change things, but all anyone is doing right now is guessing what the impact will be (and most people aren’t sharing your opinion on this as being a problem).
Remember there’s a group of people that think the $1 fee is going to be an epic fail and destroy everything, making your prize pools of thousands of dollars a fantasy we will never have to worry about.
This I can see being fully supported.
Minimum requirement:
Most shows/tourneys have 2 or more separate events to earn SCS points on same visit, set the minimum to 5 or more event results in order to be in the running for a possible SCS spot.
or
Require a person participate in events at 5 different venues in a state to qualify for a possible SCS spot.
No idea for a maximum number recommendation. I do believe the minimum number would make a maximum number not needed.
See the example of any player deciding to run 5 (or more) really quick tournaments on the show floor. This rule is easily defeated for anyone mildly interested in doing so. Some fraction of the 6%'ers are just the type of people to do this.
We don’t track “venues” in our database at all. We track “events”. This is a non-starter logistically.
again, i dont think this year or last year is a good metric for what will happen after these major changes.
i am one of these people. its very odd to be caught in a situation in which you hope to be proven wrong.
i must be misinterpreting something. you repeatedly use only 6% of players do this as an indication that the issue is not big, yet a fraction of those manipulating the system is enough to dismiss the suggestion of a minimum number of events cap??? if the amount of people who travel to other states to qualify is so minimal that you dont think changes should be made, how is it that an even smaller number of those players manipulating the new system is grounds for dismissal of the cap suggestion?
Whether it’s actually a problem or not, why do States allow every event, but world ranking is capped? Why the two systems? I would think for consistency reasons I would think you’d want these to match.
This answer is easy … We did not have the functionality to do this with the SCS system, and you can’t implement a policy that you can’t actually execute.
This functionality is now available! Hooray! Now every simulation I run using the top 20 events within the state shows the same results as the uncapped version.
But this MIGHT NOT BE TRUE FOR THE FUTURE, so let’s worry about that today?
There’s also a large contingent of people that believe the “grinders” rightly deserve those spots as much as people that don’t, so this “problem” (that doesn’t exist yet, but MIGHT exist in the future) is also not a universally accepted thing as a potential problem to begin with.
Please enlighten me on this one. How should a system determine who is at the top? How does our system keep players at the top that doesn’t have something to do with their performance at events?
I’m all ears on how we can make our system a better one …
man you’re really hangin in there with the idea that nothing will change next year. gotta admire your persistence.
thats called planning. everyone does it. are you suggesting we wait until we hit a wall before we talk about changing direction?
if i were you id recognize that the success of competition pinball is because of the players and the TDS not the ifpa. if were going to pay for a system, we want it to represent us. many are concerned (for myriad of reasons) that the 2018 changes will not represent them. your attitude of ‘your future concerns are not relevant because of my past experiences’ is the reason wisconsin and others are already working on new systems that better represent themselves and their player base.
this is unfortunately not true when it comes to SCS. this thread is a testament to the fact that people can and will get ahead simply by playing often rather than well.
The better you play, the less often you have to play. Seems as though the top players play enough to make the SCS each year… but if someone wants to try to brute-force their way in, hey more power to them.
Completely disagree and is 100% untrue for KY. You need to win the events here to even have a chance to get in. There are plenty of grinders in his state that are in the top 50 maybe, but nowhere near the top 16.
less power to them. i prefer quality over quantity.[quote=“chuckwurt, post:359, topic:3163”]
Completely disagree and is 100% untrue for KY.
[/quote]
this is a perfect example of why each state needs its own metric. the “its not happening where i am, so its not a problem where you are” is a perfect summary of these SCS discussions.
You keep making one assumption here, the “problem” you are talking about is ACTUALLY a problem. There is absolutely a group that doesn’t agree with you (even in Texas).
Let’s fast forward and assume you are right, the top 16 gets totally shaken up if you do a capped versus uncapped system . . .
Who agrees with Ray, that these “grinders” don’t deserve a spot in the top 16 of a state? Who agrees with Larry and “more power to them” for those grinders?
i dont understand how many times i need to say that i acknowledge it is not a problem now but could be in the future. I guess ill say it once more: I agree that there is currently no problem and am only speculating as to the future. did you get that?
i could say the same to you.
obviously everyone is going to disagree, because the SCS is a system that rewards quantity over quality. next year, when grinding is an easier ticket to cash than becoming an elite player, obviously everyone is gonna be for the system that gives them a shot at a cash pool for playing a lot rather than winning a few times.
It’s not an “issue” now. I can admit it might be an “issue” later.
It’s only a “problem” if you feel that grinders don’t deserve a seat at the table. My comments were about people in general not seeing that as a “problem”.
