We’ve been internally discussing a new rule for 2024 … Automatic 150% TGP for any event that pays us $10 per player in sanctioning fees.
We’ll circle back to this one later on 
1 Like
You’re really a cartel at this point… lean into it!
The fear is that by nerfing it you’ll basically force tournament organizers to choose other formats that offer more WPPRS, leading to its demise. Tournament organizers, at least around these parts, are the guys most attracted to the WPPRS, so unlikely to pick “fun” over points when given the choice. I think it’s a mistake, better to try to “fix” the format if feasible and let it keep its balls, so to speak.
Change “fear” to “hope” and I think you’re onto something.
3 Likes
Since I’m the source of the “super fun” quote, please do not attribute the whopper lust to me. I would rather play a frenzy for zero points than sit in a hotel conference room all day throwing herb entries at the wall. Even pinburgh, which is a format I love on paper, was far too much standing around. 20 games played in like 12 hours, ugh.
Not everyone who wants to play more & faster pinball is trying to game your system. I just want my playing-to-waiting ratio as high as possible.
5 Likes
should still have an min number of players? or an fixed TGP % boost for an higher fee per player (with an upper cap)
maybe at $2-$5 and not $10
save the $10 and up for the really big stuff that needs to have min players / min event types / min number of games played / etc so you can have sponsored events with an boosts but then $8-$20 player into the IFPA pot may be the max as with an sponsored event I think you want most of the sponsored funds going to that event.
also higher then $10 is pushing like X10 the funds that other events put into the pot.
Unless events with an higher per player fee put most of that higher fee into the NON LOCAL POT.
I just learned about this feature:
Click the user, click more, and then use the drop down on the right.
4 Likes
5 Likes
My weighted system is specifically designed to counter complains that I’ve gotten from people about the regular format, not for any concept about fairness, WPRRs, etc. Main complaints I hear:
- people hate conceding and having to think about that while playing
- getting into loop and playing the same machine repeatedly
- playing the same person 5 times while never playing half the field once
- complaints that some players who did well “never played the good players”, etc
Meanwhile, the main thing people like about the frenzies I’ve run is that they get to just play a bunch of pinball, no waiting around, no slow downs.
Hence I think it’s a pretty obvious step to try to design a system to remove what people dislike. Obviously opinions on frenzies vary a ton and some people like some of those things, but I’ve never heard that from any of the players at my locations, so I try to tailor the format to my players. It’s all configurable though, no reason you can’t just turn the ‘# of matches’ weight down to 0 if you want to encourage conceding or something
In general I think TDs put too much emphasis on encouraging players to concede in FFs. Maybe in the pure form the Aussies allegedly play where it’s total wins, but every FF I’ve ever played uses net wins. You basically have no chance of winning if you concede. Maybe you can improve your standing if you’re in the middle of the pack, but I’d wager no one in any of the ones I’ve played has had a winner who conceded a game.
I’ve experienced the same here. Conceding is rare, and never by the winner.
1 Like
In my last FF I went 17-2 = +15 with one concede and I didn’t really play a ball in six other games to make it go faster. I made the playoff rounds and won the tournament. It happens 
.
I’ve done it and I’m definitely in the schlub club. Current rank 2700+
Second example - this Walking Dead has no control (too fast, too much spin, random feeds from air outs) and I banged this out in a multiball stack:
I’m no schlub, but I definitely was in survival mode with maybe an aimed shot when the opportunity was provided.
You got that right. Good game. Would’ve been fun to watch.
What what you (Josh or anyone else) name this type of tournament? “Flip Frenzy” is a great name and I think this type of tournament could have an equally great name.
I might actually try to implement it if the name is good enough 
20 per player? and can player get an free win (counts ) for an buy with an odd number of players?
“Flip Not So Frenzy, but you know we really want our WPPR’s”
1 Like
I’ve called it “Available Pairings” since you could use it for head to head or group play.
Simply select the number of rounds you want played, and any time the TD chooses a match, it looks at the “available players” of those not currently in a match and does the best job the software can at creating that next match.
When a player hits the number of rounds all players will be playing they would simply become “not available” for future pairings.
4 Likes
Flip Fremzi
Fast
Limited
Iterative
Pinball
For
Robust
Equal
Matchup
Zenith
Implementation
3 Likes