WPPR v6.0 sneak peek . . .

[pinwizj]

@Oz314

Setting it at 50%, the average I mean. That’s arbitrary and debatable. In words, you are saying that anyone above that 50% number is automatically playing “at a pace that far exceeds… most humans “.

I’m in the DC area, and I have access to a ton of tournaments. I play 1-3 events most weeks, but I also turn down another 1-3 events. I’m only attending half of what I could. So it feels inaccurate to be tagged as someone playing too much.

And I note that it’s confusing and not linear at all, this “too much” idea. Because if my efficiency was higher, it wouldn’t be too much and I wouldn’t be penalized.

Why set the number at the average? Setting it at 75% or 85% feels more accurate: Playing slightly more than average should be OK, and maybe the penalties should only start once I’m in the top 25% or even top 15% of wpprtunity value.

You have 145 active events on your resume. I hate to break it to you, but there’s a large amount of Earth where it is impossible for players to even come close to the ability to compete in that many events over a 3 year period.

The fact that you’re also turning down the ability to compete another 1-3 times PER WEEK, and the only thing I can say is to have some perspective.

It’s really hard for those that are privileged to recognize their privilege. I say that because I WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. It was only coming out of COVID in the race to get WPPR’s that I realized there was a large group of players around the globe that were equally interested in chasing the WPPR dragon, but simply didn’t have the access to do that (based on location, time, money to travel, etc). Telling them “too bad” or “just create 1-3 events per week yourself” or “just build a place that has 100 games and find hundreds of people to show up” is disheartening to a very very very large percentage of this player base.

This large group just wants to be fairly ranked against their peers, and the world is not giving them the opportunity to do that. This v6.0 system is allowing them to have a better chance to be fairly judged.

You go from being ranked 708th in the world to 777th in the world. From what I’m hearing from you, this is some kind of disaster or travesty. You’re clearly far more likely to be the 708th best player in the world instead of closer to the 800th best player in the world . . . because?

The only answer that I’ve seen is that privilege and access to events shouldn’t hurt anybody in any way, but that’s a fallacy. That hurt is already happening, and it’s been happening for a LONG TIME. There are a ton of players hurt by there being no penalty, and it’s those players that don’t have the ability to compete at anywhere near the level of many of the top 1000 players.

Moving the line so you only drop from 708 to say 740 would be ‘fine’? 730? Clearly 777 is ‘not fine’, but I’m trying to find where that line of acceptability is for you.

[pinwizj]

@Oz314

A one percent difference in my efficiency average would be huge btw. I’m at 11% today. If I was at 12%, I wouldn’t have been penalized by losing 13% of my wpprs in your sample sheet.

A one percent difference wouldn’t be worth the big WPPR hauls you pulled in during your ATTEMPTS at good events. That’s the piece you seem to be discounting.

Most of my large WPPR hauls are at Eff% values that are LOWER than my current rate.

It’s still a NET BENEFIT for me to have that play analyzed by the system, even if that decreases my Eff%.

I know I’m right on this. I know you’re still at an advantage here compared to most of the world, even if you don’t think so. “Trust me”.

[yancy]

Josh is a saint. The hard truth here is, if you have 145 events on your card and you’re only ranked 708, then no, you aren’t a good player. Your primary skill is free time. Continue to enjoy playing pinball, but please don’t lose sleep over your rank. Leave that for the good players.

Spoken as a fellow mediocre player, minus the free time.

[marble]

In the current system it’s quite easy to predict your ranking point gains even before the results are in.

Example: a player’s resume with top20 results worth 40 points each. The player then wins something much bigger with predicted winner’s value of 240 pts. Assuming that no point decay occurs during the update, player nets 200 points. Knowing you get around 200 points you can predict quite closely where in total rankings you end up after the points get updated to the system.

How does this math work in WPPR v6.0? Let’s for example assume similar values than in Josh’s opening post: Eff% 20 and player having double of the average WPPRtunity metric.

[Oz314]

@pinwizj

You go from being ranked 708th in the world to 777th in the world. From what I’m hearing from you, this is some kind of disaster or travesty. You’re clearly far more likely to be the 708th best player in the world instead of closer to the 800th best player in the world . . . because?

Because I earned the wpprs to be ranked 708th fair and square according to your rules, and now you want to change it after the fact.

@pinwizj

The only answer that I’ve seen is that privilege and access to events shouldn’t hurt anybody in any way, but that’s a fallacy.

I agree completely. No system is entirely fair, and I don’t think 6.0 is more fair than 5.8, just different and more complicated.

Living where I do, if I decided to take up Cricket or Sumo, I would be at a large disadvantage because there just isn’t any of that near me. That doesn’t mean I want to see the Sumo ranks get adjusted to help address this.

@pinwizj

Moving the line so you only drop from 708 to say 740 would be ‘fine’? 730? Clearly 777 is ‘not fine’, but I’m trying to find where that line of acceptability is for you.

That’s actually easy. The line for me is where you go back in time and take away the wpprs I already earned.

I’m not a fan of this opaque system of taking wpprs away from the less efficient, but at least if it only affected future results it would be much more fair.

Going back and taking away wpprs I earned in good faith at the time is that “breaking trust” I was talking about, and that’s 95% of what has me upset with this.

[spraynard]

@pinwizj

Then this team of Swedish mathematicians said “hold my beer”, presented an entirely new system that included simulations, supporting data, compares/contrasts, reasons as to why they thought it was better.

Did 3.0 happen to be around the same time that the Swedes took over the top 10?

[pinwizj]

@marble

Example: a player’s resume with top20 results worth 40 points each. The player then wins something much bigger with predicted winner’s value of 240 pts. Assuming that no point decay occurs during the update, player nets 200 points. Knowing you get around 200 points you can predict quite closely where in total rankings you end up after the points get updated to the system.

How does this math work in WPPR v6.0? Let’s for example assume similar values than in Josh’s opening post: Eff% 20 and player having double of the average WPPRtunity metric.

To calculate the change in Eff% I would actually need to know the total number of WPPR’s that player actually played in. Since the WPPRtunity value is just a random made up stat, I can’t just use “double the average WPPRtunity metric”. When you say 800 WPPR’s and 20% Efficiency, that is a WPPRtunity value of 4000. I can’t just make that WPPRtunity value 2622 (double the average).

Let’s use @TomGWI because I just love picking on Tom (and I know he doesn’t care). His actual stats are relatively close to your example . . .

He has 766.95 WPPR’s on his top 20 card, and an Eff% of 23.28%.

If he wins IFPA18, and that was worth 240 WPPR’s, here’s what that would look like for Tom:

New WPPR total → 974.35
New Eff% → 25.25%

Tom would move himself up from 104th to 66th.

This obviously doesn’t take into account how the results impact the other 79 participants, but there you go!

[Funtorium]

This is tough but fair

I’m dropping from 100 to 150. Who gives a shit?

This will not affect my life nor the amount I play one iota.

[pinwizj]

@spraynard

Did 3.0 happen to be around the same time that the Swedes took over the top 10?

LOL it was in 2008. For those with RGP2 access you can read through that evolution.

We posted our WPPR v3.0 plans in August - there was likely a bunch of OH MY FUCKING GOD YOU’RE CHANGING THIS AGAIN? WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO FUCK US YEAR AFTER YEAR (it had only been 2 years of fucking so far).

Patrik Bodin made a comment in August:

“I’ve been playing around with the following formulas to calculate the multiplier addon for each player (where X = total number of players in the ranking system and Y = present players placement in the
rankings):” along with a bunch of mumbo jumbo that I didn’t understand.

We started providing raw data to Patrik offline to see if he could cook something up that looked better.

Over the years we’ve sent our entire database of results to roughly 10-15 people, and Patrik was the only one to ever respond with some version of “actually I think I can do this better”.

In October 2008 Alvar Palm introduced himself as the person that had been working with Patrik on the Swedish team of people trying to build a better mousetrap, which made sense because all the spreadsheets they were sending us had this value called “Alvar_Sum” that I actually thought was some real life math term for a while.

Looks like rgp2 is still active, just dormant, so send those requests to join if you want to take a trip down memory lane.

[pinwizj]

@Oz314

Because I earned the wpprs to be ranked 708th fair and square according to your rules, and now you want to change it after the fact.

Those are the rules for the 2023 season. We have a history of changing the rules every single year. Some of those changes have been retroactive in the past, to the benefit and detriment of certain players, depending on the perspective of that player. This is nothing new for IFPA.

@Oz314

I agree completely. No system is entirely fair, and I don’t think 6.0 is more fair than 5.8, just different and more complicated.

We can agree to disagree here. I think v6.0 is absolutely more fair.

@Oz314

Going back and taking away wpprs I earned in good faith at the time is that “breaking trust” I was talking about, and that’s 95% of what has me upset with this

All I can do is apologize if there was some version of an indirect contract that you felt the IFPA was providing to players through our WPPR system. The year we broke out Side events from Main events we broke trust. The year we changed rules for launch parties mid-year we broke trust. The year we decided to start charging for the sanctioning of IFPA events we broke trust. The year we no longer guaranteed events a minimum number of WPPR’s (25) we broke trust. The year we changed rules as to how we defined leagues and tournaments we broke trust.

The proof will ultimately be shown through the stats for next year. If the breaking of this trust is such a huge issue for a large amount of the player base, we will see participation rates decrease. If we see this then we’ll use that new data to fuel future changes in the continued balance of accurately ranking players while trying to motivate players to get out there and compete.

[TomGWI]

Just got to win IFPA18.

Life just keeps getting harder.

[Snailman]

Love those animated data graphs.
Any chance you’d update the graphic to current month?

[diehardpinball]

That is exactly what I was told so I did it… Now you are changing the rules come on man lol… I expect an apology the next time we talk after all the investment I made after telling me exactly what I had to do to be a top player.

Bottom line if you end up lower after this new formula then take the steps to improve your game so you can compete at the highest level instead of trying to manipulate a rating system to get yourself there.

@pinwizj

Telling them “too bad” or “just create 1-3 events per week yourself” or “just build a place that has 100 games and find hundreds of people to show up” is disheartening to a very very very large percentage of this player base.

[Oz314]

@pinwizj

The proof will ultimately be shown through the stats for next year. If the breaking of this trust is such a huge issue for a large amount of the player base, we will see participation rates decrease. If we see this

I don’t think you will see participation rates decrease, not in the aggregate. Two reasons.

One, and probably more important, is that pinball tournaments and pinball are in an upswing overall, a large secular trend. Large enough to more than erase any decreased participation due to a few people trying to adapt to your sudden rules changes. And I believe that the upward trend is increasing.

Two, these penalties only target a small portion of the players. So I don’t think there’s enough people negatively affected to even move the needle.

I already know that everyone that gets a boost from this is automatically and enthusiastically for it. So if you were choosing who to target so as to minimize the number of angry people, you chose well. Hah!

I’m mad, but even I’m not seriously contemplating quitting completely.

I do think participation will drop for some though. I say that as a fact because it is a fact among a very small sample set of 4 people, myself and 3 local pinball friends.

I just deleted words about WHY I am altering my schedule and not just trusting you and going on as before, right now I just want to convey the data.

Friends 1 & 2 are impacted more harshly than I am. Both of them are angry and are cutting back on tournaments. One of them told me their plan was to cut out the little weekly events but stick with the larger ones.

Friend 3 gains a bunch under the new formula. He is cutting back on larger events, as in I saw him in DE a few times last season but won’t this year. He’s not sure of all the details of this new system but he doesn’t want to get caught up in any penalties.

I’m looking at the math and decided I need to raise my efficiency average for the rest of the year. So I have to cut the large events and stay local, or stay where the numbers tend to be in my favor.

That means I’m cutting my June trip to D82 first. There’s almost no chance I crack 10% efficiency there, even if I do squeak out a few wpprs that would be taken away later. It made sense to go before, when there was only upside.

I’m also cutting out Pickled Egg in VA, I never do well there, it’s usually just a social event for me but those are now out.

I’m cutting the DE Collective until my efficiency rating average makes it worth the risk. That’s the first place I’ll go back to once/if my efficiency ever grows enough.

I’ve gone to Pintastic NE, White Rose, and Expo in Chicago before, but that’s all out now. I just can’t justify the time and expense when I’m very likely just hurting my efficiency by going. It’s just doesn’t sound like any fun anymore once the negatives are factored in.

I’m staying local for now, where my cost is minimal and I stand a better chance of keeping any wpprs I earn.

You have already said more than once that your goal is no longer to drive increased participation. OK, I hear you. I wanted to share what I know some people are doing anyway.

You’ll surely see another large jump in participation, there will be plenty of new players at all of those events to take our places, and they won’t be near the top 1000 and won’t raise objections to anything either, so everything is good.

I do wonder about the participation of the specific players negatively affected by this. It would be interesting to track their participation separately from the rest. I bet a plurality of them don’t change their behavior at all.

[Oz314]

@diehardpinball

instead of trying to manipulate a rating system to get yourself there

In the IFPA, the rating system manipulates YOU!

[pinwizj]

@Oz314

I’m looking at the math and decided I need to raise my efficiency average for the rest of the year. So I have to cut the large events and stay local, or stay where the numbers tend to be in my favor.

Let’s revisit in December and see how this strategy worked out for you.

[Frisbez]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Eff% works if you think that solely focusing on small local events is going to help you increase it enough to make playing at D82 or the Delaware collective worth any more or less for you.

You could play a million tournaments against your dog and and a toddler and win every single one so that your efficiency is 100%. Your rank will still not be high because those tournaments won’t be worth hardly any points. At some point you have to risk your Eff% by playing in the bigger tournaments that matter if you want your rank to go up.

Also my WPPRs under 6.0 went down. I’m penalized! Except…my rank actually went up from 88-61…turns out that there are folks who are above me currently who might just be that high more because of the amount they play as opposed to actual consistent results.

[Sychie]

I am dropping 140 spots or so and i completely understand, as i have had an advantage of being able to go to D82, yes its a 12hr drive. But i definitely have more opportunity then a lot of people. and this system makes a lot of sense to me. The only issue i see that was mentioned before, is with EFF% and if you go to a tournament with lets say the top 100 players, it is going to be a lot more difficult to achieve a good EFF% then a large local scene with not as many well ranked players. I do think eventually the quality of players you are playing against should be taken into consideration for EFF%, but i know @pinwizj mentioned they hope to account for that at a later date. hopefully sooner rather then later. but i understand it’s a lot of math and it is all volunteer time

A lot of complaints I am seeing are about more casual events or formats that people will not do well in or when they know they will not play well (I wish i knew that). I think the best solution for those concerns instead of not attending (because we are all in this for the fun!). People could just use a different name or alternate profile when entering the tournament. Then they can either have a fresh start on their IFPA profile or have an alternate profile for those days before they enter a tournament and know they won’t win. I am not sure if that is an option or is allowed @pinwizj, but it seems like the simplest option to me instead of boycotting an event. Then they can even compete against themselves for ifpa and see if their serious profile does better then their casual profile.

Just food for thought

[ScoutPilgrim]

@Sychie

A lot of complaints I am seeing are about more casual events or formats that people will not do well in or when they know they will not play well (I wish i knew that). I think the best solution for those concerns instead of not attending (because we are all in this for the fun!). People could just use a different name or alternate profile when entering the tournament. Then they can either have a fresh start on their IFPA profile or have an alternate profile for those days before they enter a tournament and know they won’t win. I am not sure if that is an option or is allowed @pinwizj, but it seems like the simplest option to me instead of boycotting an event. Then they can even compete against themselves for ifpa and see if there serious profile does better then their casual profile.

“Smurfing” (having alternate profiles to play for-fun/at a lower ranking) is already such a widespread issue in the gaming community. I would not want to see it come to pinball.

[yancy]

@Sychie

People could just use a different name or alternate profile when entering the tournament.

[wins tournament] Oh hey, TD, you know what, I put the wrong name down. I’m not Robert Smith, I’m Bob Smith.