Quite a few people will void a ticket after 2 or 3 games if it’s obvious that it won’t be a good-enough ticket. Expensive approach to doing it, that’s for sure.
Indisc especially because that is a great show! (Assuming it’s still linked to arcade expo) As long as the “random” has some order. Games should be grouped ala pinburgh based on controllability/ era if using mixed modern and classics.
I am not saying I would prefer such a format but I am pretty sure it would eliminate some line issues if I am not playing for game choice or byes. Maybe base byes on fewest entries? Lol, that would REALLY cut down the lines 
3 Likes
Interesting idea, but hard to balance. Who is “more worthy” of getting a bye, someone who makes the top 24 with the fewest entries, or the person who qualifies #1? Perhaps a hybrid: top 4 get byes and the 4 needing the fewest entries get byes. If there’s overlap, go to #5 overall position, then #5 fewest entries, etc.
Yes, that would make sense and could probably be arranged. In essence, create “banks” of games randomly [e.g. random new + random DMD + random SS], and groups get assigned to banks randomly.
I’ll suggest it to my co-directors and see what they think. When I drafted the rules way back when, we went with a “standard” format, but there’s no reason we can’t do a modest experiment. I think it’s good to try out new formats to see how they work, provided they’re not too bizarre for higher-profile events [will we see the super-bracket again at Expo?]. If we try it and it’s popular, maybe other events will, too.
We were actually trying out a final formula for game selection to avoid always having the same 3 games picked every round… boring for everyone to play AND watch 
We assume that people can only pick the same game again after picking ALL the games from the bank across ALL final rounds.
There is some different strategy on keeping your “best” pick for later round or deferring game pick for position to allow other people to pick, potentially your preferred game or your least favorite one…
1 Like
I think Pin Pin 101 uses a similar format. Works great with a bunch of games but I’d be skeptical for a small tournament.
False, in European tournaments, often top seed plays first, and, must choose game first when all players are picking machines. Because… insanity.
3 Likes
Cayle, you’ve played more in Europe than I have. I said “some” based on my limited experience. When I played the Dutch Masters, the round-robin was random opponent, random game, random order; EPC Classics was the same way the year I played in that. I don’t recall anyone having game choice in the main EPC playoff portion then, either, but I’m less certain of that part.
Re PinPin, that works fairly well because there are so many to choose from. Germain’s idea is a tighter fit. What we could do is pre-arrange that the rounds rotate banks for the players who make it through.
This absolutely happened at the Bat City Open (which was unlimited qualifying). Fewer than half of the regular weekly league attendees from both Austin leagues played in the tournament.
1 Like
Law,
Yes, I was surprised not to see more Texas locals at Bat City. Anybody know if that was true in Buffalo or not?
Cayle,
So when the Europeans do it this way [top seed plays first], what’s their reasoning? That playing against the lower seeds is reward enough and that the higher seed should get a little of that edge offset by having to play first?
You are giving it way too much credit - its literally, “Your top seed, you get to go 1st!” as if its a privilege to go first. “You’re top seed, so you get to pick the first game! isn’t that great?!”
3 Likes
Is that different when tournaments are being run by players who have been to the US and see the “higher seed gets choice” schemes here? I.e. do people like Mats and Mads set it up that way, or just the TDs who don’t travel here?
“Privilege” to go first my a**.
But while we’re on the subject, what other sport gives a player or team any edge in the playoffs other than seeding the top against the bottom and “home field” which, in most cases, is physically the same [albeit not so psychologically]?
I have heard the WSOP analogy a few times over the years when talking about getting more mainstream coverage of competitive pinball. You know what else WSOP has besides the big cash pools? Some dude that won his way into the final table off a free internet tourney. An underdog. We don’t get that much. I will watch and root for damn near any of the guys or girls I know and like in the finals, but remember the first year Raymond or Kevin made a showing? Or When the Letkoff or Rosa boys started showing their promise? That was fun to watch.
I’m one of those bubble kids, always on the cusp. I would love to got to PAPA, but spending that kind of money for a chance to be 27th as I watch unnamed players who are already in 6th-10th place keep playing entries so they have a better shot at the bye an slowly knocking me lower and lower is just a bummer. It should be harder for the best to make it to the finals. They are the best so it should’nt be the hard to make it work for them…
Haven’t they earned the right to NOT play the hardest competition, by virtue of qualifying high? Otherwise, Bowen would be telling us to “Play worse!” I am not a fan of the underdog gaining their way into the playoffs on the backs of people who are more deserving of a spot there.
Sounds good . . . I have no problem intentionally qualifying in a worse position
So should the Cubs be in the NL wild card game for having the best regular season record?
I guess that read kinda weird, my point is, the people who can keep throwing money at better seeding make it tough for us just trying to get in the finals. I understand you want better positions, but if it was limited, some of the people on the bubble might still be there at the end of qualifying. This is could be total BS since I have no numbers or data to prove it, nor do I care to spend the time to figure them out. Since I have to work, to pay for said tourneys that I will still go to.
1 Like
In some ways, the Circuit and WPPR 5 have made things worse by encouraging the use of 24-person playoffs, with most events making those playoffs PAPA-style with byes. That:
a. makes the playoffs run longer [4 4-player per match rounds instead of 3 as with 16 players], an issue for people with long drives or flights ahead of them
b. means people playing more entries to get byes
One way out is to remove the byes. How then to narrow the field round by round? Go from 24 to 12 and then to 6 PAPA-style, seeds 1-12-13-24, etc., re-seeding for round 2 as is done now [highest remaining seed of the 12 players left vs. lowest and two in the middle, etc.]. Round three is where things change: two groups of 3, PAPA-style, but only the winner of each group goes to the finals. The final is then head-to-head, mano-a-mano.
Advantages:
- the overall game count is lower - - the semifinals the final take less time due to having fewer players. Saves on time on finals day.
- no more playing entries for byes
- the semifinals will be more intense since only 1 player from each group will make the finals
- the finals will be more intense, being head-to-head
- the finals will be easier for the viewers to follow - - no more confusing scenarios re who’s got to do what to win, unless this other player does X. You won’t be able to “partially back in” to victory because player 3 slid their score in between your score and someone else’s.
Hmm…
1 Like
As a spectator I would prefer this. It would be awesome watching a best of 5 or 7 for the top prize. I don’t like how people who have been mathematically eliminated from first place can prevent other people from winning in the current PAPA style finals.
1 Like
I’ve thought about this (the Poker Boom analogy) too but there are some things I don’t like about this idea. First, while it’s easy to look at Poker from the years 2003-2006 and go “aha! This is what we need to do” I don’t think it’s that simple. Right now, Pinball is growing like Crazy!!! Not doubling-every-year crazy but exponentially at least in the US. I started playing pinball just over 3 years ago and there are 1.5x-3x the number of locations and tournaments and players since then everywhere I go. If you look at IFPA numbers you have at least 20%+ growth in active players every year. It’s to the point where it’s even had more of a showing in the mainstream culture. If you looked at the articles written about pinball in 2012 it was “pinball? does that still exist?” to 2014 “Local couple keeps pinball dream alive by opening a very successful pinball bar” to “why aren’t you watching pinball on twitch already?” There’s sustainable, organic growth right now in competitive pinball and location pinball. The only hiccups in pinball-as-a-whole are from your new manufacturers, which I won’t get into here.
Second, pinball is a skill game, and tournament experience is necessary to succeed at a high competitive level. It’s extremely difficult to succeed without hundreds to thousands of hours of studying competitive play online or being a part of it in tournaments. This is not a bad thing for popularity though because the pinball meta-game is much more interesting than most individual sports. Sorry olympics but the 9 second 100m dash is boring as h*ck and it’s no wonder we can only tolerate you once every 4 years.
Third, pro golf and pro poker still shows us that recognizable players and stars can be fun, and individual sports need their “stars” on top to get people interested. If we do get to a higher level of popularity, and I’m optimistic that we will in my playing career, the entertainment factor will be key, and watching some lottery-winner peter out in the 1st round won’t be as fun as watching Raymond take his first PAPA or Pinburgh win and then going on a huge run in all subsequent circuit events for the year.
The way I see it is more like this: eSports are what’s paving the way right now for new sports/games as well as alternatives to TV syndication & production for how you can even consume a sporting event. Gaming clients now let you view entire matches of League however you would like to. You’re in control of the broadcast and you render the whole thing yourself! I think that it’s nice right now that we can experiment with the spectator part of pinball since that didn’t exist until 4-5 years ago at all and people are figuring out better and better ways to do it. I don’t want some ESPN guy to take over all production and demand we only play games of linked NBA because that’s what he thinks people on TV will respond to best.
As for playing and having players succeed at the high level, it’s certainly possible to break into the “A-tier” and I don’t think the A tier of players is as stagnant as it may seem. Yes Keith wins constantly but he’s in a different tier above A so that doesn’t count. What I think would be nice would be if there were player sponsorships or anything that could help give more players the opportunity to compete. Even if this happens though there won’t be a lot of sponsors willing to back a guy who “might” qualify at an event and “might” show up once or twice on the twitch stream.
So I think i’ve strayed off topic enough in this post and probably sound very critical. Anyhow pump and dump is good and fine for now imo. It’s not much different than limited formats anyhow because time and knowledge are often still your enemy (especially with huge 1st and 2nd place score bonuses.) And, there are even a few circuits now with “unlimited” pump and dump (Magfest, Flippers OBX) which show the exact same thing. Players who are already qualified are still parked on the games trying to get a better seed and better bye.