Completely agree. @ClevelandPinball has made the same choice on the one he has on location. All matches are single player to avoid the “make it look good” save after you’ve already drained.
Interesting, I was just thinking this should be written down. Of course, I checked game notes and it is there. I am really disappointed that when used at Ontario PCS these recommendations were not followed. The TD didn’t scream radical even once, and there was no skateboarding at all.
I always thought this originated after the year at PAPA where some players were intentionally tilting during a tiebreaker in order to try to get the lowest score and get into the ‘preferred’ group, based on the grouping rules at the time that didn’t allow choice.
We would never do that, right Brian???
Though watching me play, you wouldn’t guess it.
you can do that for the first plunge, but when it auto-plunges after ball save, all bets are off.
Then it almost comes down to game rule knowledge. I lock I ball. I choose not to tilt out and. It give it to you. Then you play and tilt out purposefully to removed the locked ball since you knew the rule. Either I didn’t know it or chose not too. I agree it’s a bit dirty but it’s like knowing secret jackpots on demo man per day and not telling anyone else. You chose to learn the rules/quirks of the game and I didn’t. Tilting to steal my locked ball it a strategy. You forfeited bonus points to derive me of a possible feature.
I agree the intentional tilting rules are vague and see no overwhelming benefit to them for the odd situations they actually create.
And Radical is the only one most can think of where a tilt is deriving another player of a feature besides the one playing.
I also agree with @keefer about let the tilt bob rule everything. Tilt warnings through should vary the same Penalty as a tilt through. That penalty changes based on how many tilt warnings a machine is set up on? Classic games there is only tilt throughs. A modern game set with 1 warning could be a DQ. If it has 2 warnings it’s just a spoken warning to the tilt througher and the effected player has to walk on eggshells unlike everyone else? Death saves down withing a tilt bobs settings are no worse than some of the big slide saves we always see. If it doesn’t tilt out it couldn’t of been that violent. If it was violent. You’ll tilt out and won’t try that again.
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 “intentional” part of the rule to be true.
I played Radical at Pinburgh 2016. I’m pretty sure I tilted it trying to save a drain, and I’m 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 line… (for the record, nothing actually happened, and I don’t 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 “TILT = SCORE of ZERO” 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 TAF’s greed issue. If a bug/exploit exists and you don’t 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 don’t use a pin that has intentional tilt benefits that typically outweigh the cost of tilting.
I think having a more severe penalty for “danger/warning-throughs” 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 it’s 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 “tilt = score 0,” just saying that if someone really wants to use Radical and really intends to enforce the “no beneficial tilt” 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 couldn’t be guilty of tilting intentionally, so you really can’t enforce the ‘intentional’ part of the rule.
I agree with you - a tilt is a tilt is a tilt; don’t 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?
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 can’t 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. That’s just another aspect of playing competitively (even though it might be distasteful). Ejecting someone else’s lock by tilting simply means that playing last is less of an advantage than it normally is. (Players 1–3 get three chances to eject a lock, whereas player 4 gets only two chances.)
Within the rules, the only way to “discourage” 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 rule…
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 I’ve seen, nearly all tilts fall into moderate, whether they’re intentional or not.
[quote=“gammagoat, post:76, topic:2429”]
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 doesn’t constitute abuse.
While I would agree that it’s 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 isn’t allowed. No tilting for greed letter or DQ is all you need to write.
But then you’re back to where we started: was a tilt done “for a greed letter” or as a result of a legitimate attempt to save the ball? Subjective rulings suck.