This is what makes the whole intentional tilt rule ridiculous: the TD has to crawl into the players head TWICE. First, to judge whether the player even knew of the exploit, and second, to judge if they deliberately tilted to use the exploit. Both must be true for the āintentionalā part of the rule to be true.
I played Radical at Pinburgh 2016. Iām pretty sure I tilted it trying to save a drain, and Iām damn sure I had NO clue about locks being ejected on tilt on that game. Any intentional tilt ruling would have been completely out of lineā¦ (for the record, nothing actually happened, and I donāt think any balls were locked when I tilted)
I suggest the rule be trashed, and any specific machine issues be dealt with on those specific machines. Radical - big sign on backglass āTILT = SCORE of ZEROā if you want to remove lock-killing strategy on that game. I want to emphasize that TDs should NEVER EXPECT a player to know unpublished nuances/bugs like this or TAFās greed issue. If a bug/exploit exists and you donāt want players abusing it, disallow it with a big sign so everyone is on the same page. Or, just live with it. Possibly punish warning-thrus with a game score of zero (and publish this rule conspicuously) on games that tempt ball-ending tilts.
Wha??? So now you want to have a tilt carry an even higher penalty than the Tilt Ends Game that most EM Wedgeheads have? That seems a bit extreme. Just do away with the intentional tilt = DQ rule, and then let the tilt bob and tilt cost/benefit of each pin govern player decisions. Or donāt use a pin that has intentional tilt benefits that typically outweigh the cost of tilting.
I think having a more severe penalty for ādanger/warning-throughsā would make sense though. Some games like WOZ have warning/dangers PER GAME vs per ball so that is worse for a player and either way it does kinda suck to have one of your dangers burned if someone danger-throughs. But not sure what a good penalty is since as is itās like a Warning the first time right? or obviously on a WOZ type game if it was the 2nd danger/tilt then the player who caused it would get DQd/zero right?
Oh I am not advocating the usage of ātilt = score 0,ā just saying that if someone really wants to use Radical and really intends to enforce the āno beneficial tiltā rule for whatever reason, they need to make sure the players actually know the exploit AND rule before anyone plunges the first ball. Many players do not know of the exploit, and thus couldnāt be guilty of tilting intentionally, so you really canāt enforce the āintentionalā part of the rule.
I agree with you - a tilt is a tilt is a tilt; donāt muck up tourney rules to compensate for buggy game software.
So how can this rule that seemingly nobody likes be removed from the combined ruleset? @pinwizj sends an email to whomever decides the rules on the PAPA side?
@MHS, @PAPA_Doug, @Smack847 and myself climb to the top of the highest mountain in all the land, wait for a sign from the pinball gods, and pass that message back to the people
My personal suggestion would be to replace it with one of the no consequence rule like, intentionally tilting a game with cause TDs to look at you with a disappointed look. I canāt remember what existing rule is worded like that, or maybe I am making that up.
My point being, I think it should be allowed, but I think it should be discouraged.
I appreciate the appeal to sportsmanship here but, to be honest, in a tournament, the gloves are off. If a player can gain an advantage by taking actions that are within the rules, I expect the player to take those actions. Thatās just another aspect of playing competitively (even though it might be distasteful). Ejecting someone elseās lock by tilting simply means that playing last is less of an advantage than it normally is. (Players 1ā3 get three chances to eject a lock, whereas player 4 gets only two chances.)
Within the rules, the only way to ādiscourageā something is to have a penalty. And, to have a penalty, there must be an objective way of assessing whether the penalty applies. Which is why we are discussing removal of the ruleā¦
We will just have to disagree here and I am probably in the minority. You are really just trading one interpretation for another. Intentionally tilting could violate abuse of machines since you are exceeding force allowed by the tilt, intentionally.
Abuse of Machines Tilt sensors are employed to determine what constitutes unduly rough handling of each machine, within the parameters of normal play. Abusive handling such as punching, kicking, lifting, tipping, or rocking a machine, or hitting the glass in any way, is grounds for a warning and possible disqualification of game or ejection from the tournament, at the discretion of tournament officials.
No, it is quite possible to intentionally tilt a game while not abusing it.
There are three levels of force: Minimal (which is agreeable to both the tilt bob and tournament director), moderate (which will set off the tilt bob but not the TD), and abuse (unacceptable by anyone/anything, see ya, DQ).
From what Iāve seen, nearly all tilts fall into moderate, whether theyāre intentional or not.
[quote=āgammagoat, post:76, topic:2429ā]
Intentionally tilting could violate abuse of machines since you are exceeding force allowed by the tilt, intentionally.[/quote]
That rule is about excessive force, rage tilting, and so on. A normal tilt (intentional or not) is just that: a normal tilt. It happens all the time and doesnāt constitute abuse.
While I would agree that itās possible to tilt a game without abusing it, abuse goes a little deeper. Stetta can bang back games with minimal force. Because of guys like Rick, they had to specifically say no bang backs (or death saves).
I like the idea above about listing on the apron that the exploit isnāt allowed. No tilting for greed letter or DQ is all you need to write.
But then youāre back to where we started: was a tilt done āfor a greed letterā or as a result of a legitimate attempt to save the ball? Subjective rulings suck.
We have just made our journey back from the mountain top, and the pinball gods have spoken.
The explanation was told to us in a very Charlton Heston style voice for anyone trying to picture what we just went through.
The rule STAYS as it is written.
Having it there is another tool in the TD arsenal to punish abusive players. Yes, judging intent is hard/impossible, but so is collusion, but I donāt see our rules for that going away any time soon.
The easiest way for me as a TD to enforce this rule is when I see a player run back to a machine after the ball is drained, just to go shake the game to tilt out because they āforgotā. To me that is evidence enough of intent to make that judgement call.
Furthermore, we play a gentlemanās (and ladies) game. If there is an issue whether a player intentionally tilted on Radical to free the lock balls, I will simply ASK THAT PLAYER. If they say they did, then that is intent enough for me to enforce this rule. If they say they didnāt, I take the player at their word that they didnāt, and move on.
Until next time . . . THE PINBALL GODS HAVE SPOKENNNNNNNNNNN!
Considering that the rule will stay, the best course of action might be to not use Radical! and other games with this issue in tournaments. If there is no advantage to be gained by tilting, the problem solves itself.
This game contains lock stealing between players. Due to the unusually difficult ball-lock procedure, we recommend this game is only used in single-player scenarios. Outside of using custom roms, if they are available, no major modifications need to be made to Radical in a competitive environment.
Many of the awards, including the Mega Millions Jackpot, are random. The scoring discrepancy in the Mega Millions jackpot between players is a major concern for competitive play. Directors are encouraged to install modified roms that lock the jackpot value at 5million. Directors are also encouraged to skateboard more and scream Radical when anyone manages to shoot the lane at the top center of the playfield.
