It wouldn’t be the “Cincy” Event…It would be an Ohio or whatever State has a city that qualifies to hold the event…So it could be the Louisville event if it’s in KY, or the St. Louis event if it’s in Missouri…
I would say it would need to be somewhere in between a “big” event like the Ohio show which the winner got 55 points for and what you get for winning the Kidforce league (which is the biggest league in Ohio) which the winner got 40 points for. Somewhere in that range.
I realize you can’t make it worth that many points, but I’m not saying that by winning this “event” you are guaranteed to make the cut but you would have a better chance. That way if you would win one of these 3 “Ohio” events you would have a better shot at participating in the Ohio SCS finals. I realize this doesn’t really help anyone in the Cleveland area they already have a shitload of events and opportunities to get points and Columbus and Cincy are behind, but this would give the entire State 3 opportunities to gain some points and make it more of a State SCS than a 1 area that has a shit ton of events CS.
LOL!! Maybe you get that Shepherd guy to work on this as I know he has nothing else going on to occupy him!!!
Why not just actually run a “big event” in Cincy to give this opportunity to the state. If you want an event worth 40-50 points, you should be able to throw something like that together.
Unless you’re looking to run a smaller 20 point style event and have it worth an arbitrary double or triple the normal value?
You had mentioned wanting to create an event worthy of out of towners attending. If you do that the points will simply calculate out that well. I’ve seen it with the bigger Gameworks weekend events we used to run back in 2009-2012 that would bring players from all over the region. Just “do that”?
seems as if the competitive pinball community can all agree on a few things.
that a balance for SCS rankings needs to be found. some formula that combines the following:
-does not allow players to make it to SCS with a small number of highly valuable tournaments,
while still creating events big enough to attract out of state players.
-does not allow players to make it to SCS with a large number of events that hold little value, while
encouraging as many local events as possible.
a system that is tailored by state or region based on the player base would satisfy most players but is a logistical nightmare few have expressed interest in taking.
since i started the thread i suppose ill toss in my two cents:
State rankings should be determined by total number of points earned, a minimum of five in state events is required but a maximum of thirty is enforced.
“national” level tournaments (TPF,BCO, pin masters etc…) do not count towards a states ranking.
events worth less than .5 points are not calculated towards SCS.
i realize this suggestion has a whole series of holes to work out, but this is just what i see as being the most definitive way to rank players in my state (TEXAS). go easy on it.
Which 30 events count for a State? Is it the same 30 events for all players, or each player keeps their best 30?
How do you determine what a “national” level tournament is? What about “regional” or “international” tournaments for those states that have them (and how are those definitions defined)? Does it depend on how many players from out of state compete in the event? Are these all subjective decisions or is there objective criteria to follow? Who is making that determination? State Rep? Me?
I am not able to agree with this. In my area, I think chasing provincials in the current form has caused
more weeklies and other small frequent tournaments
motivated all the TDs to grow their tournaments to get points values up and try to be a big needed tournament.
I see lots of new players seeking out lots of tournaments to see how far they can climb in PCS. And I am not talking about people threatening the top 16, they are like 150.
I think the motivations today are healthy for the goal of growing pinball. I am worried some of the suggestions have the opposite effect.
These two points directly contradict each other. Not counting the largest events in a state makes no sense at all to me.
@pinwizj has already posted data showing that there would be minimal impact on who makes the TX SCS by instituting an event cap.
The current SCS system has encouraged a LOT more people in Houston to become passionate about competitive pinball, and to get together up to 3 times a week to play competitive pinball. That’s a good thing, in my opinion.
As it sits, almost every IFPA event is open to everyone, so theoretically they could all be “national” events.
The locals know people are just not going to travel across the United States to play in a 3 strikes tourney at the neighborhood bait and tackle store/tire center/mini arcade. But the point is, anybody could.
It seems to be much of the ‘local centric’ focus proposals would really be best served by a custom local ranking. So ‘just weeklies’ like Portland does, or nothing in NYC like the Upstate guys do. Madison and Tucson also do custom rankings focusing in on just that local activity and avoiding the bigger stuff having an impact.
So if someone in a far-from-the-leagues part of a state goes to the state’s one “large” event, wins it and maybe also the side event, they’re EXcluded? Just because all of the league action is somewhere that’s not practical for them to go to? They go to the “big” event because it’s on a weekend and worth their while to drive a few hours. The state’s leagues are on weeknights in one or two cities the same several hours away.
league=local
monthlies=local
houston arcade expo=state
TPF,BCO=national
???
this is just a suggestion, and will obviously be subject to scrutiny at every level, i think there is some potential for a format like this but it might just be nonsense so sorry if its a derail.
it only makes a little sense in the way that someone couldnt travel to a large event for the sole purpose of it being their ticket in. they can go and play, and earn money and WPPRS but not advance their scs ranking for that state. for example, everyone who did well in nationals and ifpa pin masters and TPF couldnt have a ticket to the Texas SCS in their back pocket should they not make it elsewhere. The obvious downside is that in state players would be treated the same. But if somewhere there is an event that draws 200 players and only 20 of them are from in state should those 20 really get points toward SCS when 90% of the players in that tournament are not from that state? just a thought on how to curb the whole out of staters only playing in a few big tourneys thing. once again, just tossin things out there.
the way they play ball down there is just legendary, I am honestly hoping that their style becomes the standard for how pinball is played in big cities. For what its worth, this thread was started because i think all of pinball needs to find a way to do what they’ve done in terms of attendance, and i wanted to point out that perhaps the SCS should be changed to a system that prevents rating inflation via bulk play, the same as the WPPR system does.
i completely understand why that doesn’t sound right to you, and its not a perfect suggestion.
What doesn’t sound right to me is someone grinding away all year at their local league, playin in every tourney, doing everything they can to make it, and not getting in because earlier in the year an elite out of stater won the biggest event that year. I am looking for something between the two extremes.
thats true. i guess since ive only ever heard of it being an issue i assumed it was without ever looking into how often it happens.
haha, had to look up YMMV. no my mileage is the exact same! 15/16 in staters here! 16/16 if you count josh henderson who came from illinois (where he lives) to play in texas (where hes from)!!!
edit: if SCS ended now it would be 3/16 for this year.
In all seriousness THIS is what we deal with all the time. The perception of issues that aren’t actually material issues.
If there’s one thing I pride myself on, it’s analysis of HARD DATA to the point of obsession before deciding to implement or not implement any IFPA related changes.
I think about this stuff A LOT… Like too much … Like my wife is literally yelling at me right now for being on my phone … gotta run
So, I kinda like the idea of a cap for the SCS, but I don’t think 20 or 30 is a reasonable amount of games to determine rankings. What about something like 52? (Note: Top 52 events) Basically a tournament a week for the year can count towards your regional ranking.
