WPPR v6.0 sneak peek . . .

[pinwizj]

@Dhamm

I think making sure there is incentive to keep opening large venues around the world and encourage more new players in more areas to start playing pinball and in turn creating more wpprtunity around the world should be top priority.

There’s plenty of incentive. Everyone who plays in large venues has an advantage against players that don’t. Everyone who plays in large venues are better off than not playing in large venues.

You may think creating more opportunity is the top priority of the World Pinball Player Rankings. I am of the opinion that it isn’t the job of a ranking system to do that.

@Dhamm

So in 2060 can he post this and say sorry guys but the stats show im still top 10 in the world? Your argument that im using hyperbole and then posting this is comical

In 2060 Keith would be judged based only on his 2058, 2059 and 2060 activity, so if he earned enough WPPR’s during that time to be top 10 in the world, yes, we would say he’s top 10 in the world.

My posting of that graphic is to simply show that trying to argue that Keith should be ranked lower, at any point in time in competitive pinball history, for any reason you could possibly think of (outside of the time where he didn’t start competing) is comical. There’s “good players”. . . There’s “great players” . . . and there’s “Keith”.

The level of dominance that he’s shown over the past 30 years against every other human being that attempts to play this game is [insert hyperbolic statement].

[Oz314]

Hopefully without hyperbole, I want to say that I think this change is unfair, it fundamentally changes tournament pinball, and it should not be adopted.

You are trying to make things more accurate and fair for players with less wppr access, but you are taking it out on some of your most loyal players, those of us with lower efficiency ratings.

This is Douglas J Malcolm. As I look at the sample spreadsheet, it’s obvious that the players having wpprs removed all have efficiency ratings below that of the players around them in rank. My efficiency rating is 10.82% in the sample spreadsheet, lower than many of the people around me in the low-700s rank. But having a low efficiency really just means that even though I am not winning a whole lot, I keep coming back, I keep trying. In spite of not finishing well all the time.

You are proposing changing competitive pinball in one very big way: A poor tournament performance now has negative consequences.

Before efficiency rating was so important, I was free to play up the DE Collective against high level competition, and it was all upside. Either I did well, or I didn’t do well but still had a good time. Because there was no downside. Now I have to notice that my efficiency rating in DE is extremely low most of the time, and if I don’t want to be penalized and have wpprs removed, I need to raise my efficiency. To raise my efficiency, I need to avoid the Collective.

Yes, that’s for people that chase the wpprs and rank, which I do without shame. This is the game I choose to play with my time and money.

The thing that upsets me the most about this is the backdating. You are changing the rules after the fact, and you are taking away wpprs that I worked hard to earn, and that I want to keep. I earned them by playing by the rules we all agreed to play by at the time, and it’s extremely demotivating to me that you want to go back now and remove some, for only some people.

Yes, it’s “only” 21.5 wpprs being removed in the sample in my case. But that 21 wpprs is more than any single win in my pinball tournament history except for one. It very much feels like being ripped off, doing this after the fact. I respectfully suggest that you find a way to achieve your goals for the system without penalizing people. Some way where the changes only happen moving forward, and you don’t backdate this and remove wpprs.

Certainly, things change with the rules every year. But in the 6 years I’ve been around the IFPA, you haven’t broken trust by reaching back into the past and taking away wpprs that were earned fair and square.

You mentioned on the podcast that some people are angry. For me, this is the whole reason I am upset, this potential breaking of the trust. Do this in some way that only affects the future and I have no complaints. I wish we had more stability here in the IFPA, because at the moment I am regretting giving so much of myself to an activity/hobby/sport that can change so drastically and so quickly in what I see as an unfair way. Please don’t adopt this as-is.

[spraynard]

@BMU

Yes, trust the Math guy, Glicko is NOT for pinball. We have major variations in event format, event “depth” (e.g. number of meaningful games played), strength of field, etc. that would all render Glicko garbage. It’s not like Chess where a chess game is a chess game is a chess game and all that matters is the rating of you and your opponent and who won (or drew).

Sure, this is true of the off-the-shelf version of Glicko, which was specifically created for head-to-head chess matches, but there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a rating based system that is specifically tailored to pinball and accounts for all those things you just mentioned.

[skink91]

Isn’t the whole point of WPPRs to rank accurately? If you have inflated rank based on WPPRs alone with no context of how many times you spun the wheel, you are gauging the value of them in some bizarre context outside of their entire purpose.

Why does rank mean anything if it says you are better than your actual performance would indicate?

I feel like I am missing something critical here.

[pinwizj]

@spraynard

there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a rating based system that is specifically tailored to pinball and accounts for all those things you just mentioned

Waiting on this so I can retire

[spraynard]

@pinwizj

Waiting on this so I can retire

Would you actually consider blowing away WPPRs for a rating system?

[pinwizj]

@spraynard

Would you actually consider blowing away WPPRs for a rating system?

If someone created something that more accurately ranked players, and that team had the interest, time and motivation in processing 9000 tournament results per year into that thing, I’d be happy to focus on being a better husband and father

[Shaub]

@Oz314

You are trying to make things more accurate and fair for players with less wppr access, but you are taking it out on some of your most loyal players, those of us with lower efficiency ratings.

You could also just look at it as “taking it out on” the players with the most access to WPPRs. Who should be the target when making things more accurate and fair for people with less WPPR access? What metric makes more sense? Would it be better to boost the WPPRs of players with high efficiency and lower WPPR access rather than decrease the WPPRs of players with lower efficiency and higher WPPR access?

@Oz314

you are taking away wpprs that I worked hard to earn, and that I want to keep. I earned them by playing by the rules we all agreed to play by at the time, and it’s extremely demotivating to me that you want to go back now and remove some, for only some people.

You’ll still earn all of the WPPRs just the same as I understand it, but when it comes to the Top 1000, the rankings will include an adjusted value that takes your total WPPRs into account but also incorporates a metric to judge your true skill level (rank) based on how many WPPRs have been available to you.

I can see where you’re coming from with not liking the changes, but if earning WPPRs and climbing the rankings is your ultimate goal, then this just adds another aspect to doing that: consistency.

[EMLover1970]

I don’t think a better point has been made than the that your rank should take into account ALL your play. And no, one bad result isn’t going to hurt you much, but many bad results will be reflected in your ranking. And it should.

Again, if we all had access to the same tournaments, the same venues, the same number of opportunities, like with the PGA tour, none of this would be necessary. But we don’t. Pinball competition is extremely diffuse. It’s hard to compare everyone because we so seldom have all that many of us in the same room. Pinburgh is gone, so no 1000 player events currently.

The rankings and how they are done owe you nothing.

[yancy]

@Oz314

Hopefully without hyperbole, I want to say that I think this change is unfair, it fundamentally changes tournament pinball,

Narrator: There was hyperbole.

[Potatoloco]

@skink91

Isn’t the whole point of WPPRs to rank accurately? If you have inflated rank based on WPPRs alone with no context of how many times you spun the wheel, you are gauging the value of them in some bizarre context outside of their entire purpose.

To be fair, the current ranking system has been used by everyone who has played tournaments and achieved their rank within the v5.8 system (or previous v5.7). While some may argue about the notion of inflated ranks, which I understand the point being made, it’s important to note that, as of right now, all rankings have been earned according to v5.8.

[Ianhawkesworth]

Thanks for explaining once again. I like these adjustments - it seems quite logical when removing the cap and looking at the math👌 When we meet in Fulda there’s a beer on me for taking all this time to respond.

[Oz314]

@Shaub

I can see where you’re coming from with not liking the changes, but if earning WPPRs and climbing the rankings is your ultimate goal, then this just adds another aspect to doing that: consistency.

My biggest concern is the backdating. I’m fine incorporating consistency into the rankings moving forward, but I’m not fine with applying this to the past couple of years of results, when we were playing by different rules.

I mean, what’s the big rush for? Why can’t this major change be phased in slowly, leaving the past results alone?

I can’t emphasize enough how wrong I think it is to go back and remove wpprs like that.

Here’s one way: the new system with efficiency rating starts collecting data as of January 1st 2024 but we keep the existing system as is for 2024. Then in January 2025 the system changes over to wppr 6.0 and only uses the data from 2024. Just the new data starting from the date everyone knows about.

Yes, wppr 6.0 would only have 1 full year of data to start, but it would be good data, and eventually we’d have the full 3 years of results.

That gets you to the new system without actively altering the past results.

[pinwizj]

@Oz314

I need to avoid the Collective.

Let’s take a trip to a world where you never played any events at the Collective . . .

Current evaluation:
WPPR’s on your top 20 card → 168.48
Eff% → 11.03%
WPPR v6.0 value → 147.24 (ranked 777th)

All DPC events removed:
WPPR’s on your top 20 card → 138.89
Eff% → 12.62%
WPPR v6.0 value → 138.89 (ranked 841st)

Congrats on raising your Eff% . . . you would be ranked 64 spots LOWER in the rankings if you remove all your DPC activity.

I hate to keep pounding this into the ground over and over . . . but all of that DPC activity HELPED YOU RAISE YOUR RANK BY 64 SPOTS. You benefitted from those opportunities to play. You simply didn’t benefit as much as you used to under a pre WPPR v6.0 system.

[Jokton]

@pinwizj

We will be making a change to the dynamic distribution formula to coincide with the v6.0 change, and that’s removing the player cap where this dynamic distribution stops. In the current rules dynamic points are awarded to the top 50% of players as long as the field is 128 players or less. Any event that has more than 128 players simply had the dynamic points shared among the top 64 finishers.

Will this change be retroactive to all active events?

What happens for much smaller events that are full of top players, like SCS? To me it seems like someone who makes state finals should not get penalized if they finish low, since they already proved their worth by qualifying? (along the same vein as everyone gets paid at state)

[pinwizj]

@Oz314

Here’s one way: the new system with efficiency rating starts collecting data as of January 1st 2024 but we keep the existing system as is for 2024. Then in January 2025 the system changes over to wppr 6.0 and only uses the data from 2024. Just the new data starting from the date everyone knows about.

This would lead to a massive exploit of players being far more motivated to focus on Eff% in 2024 by only playing in ‘easy tournaments’, because they would get to apply that inflated Eff% to a WPPR card full of old results.

It’s currently May 10, 2023. By the time any of this matters it’ll be January 1, 2025. There’s already 19 months of future activity that hasn’t happened yet. Feel free to get a head start now on whatever strategy you want to run with to enjoy yourself as best as you can.

If we end up finding a way to create the Eff% calculation with decay, but the time it’s January 1, 2025, all of that 2022 activity will have half of the impact it has today. All of that 2023 activity will have 75% of the impact it has today.

[pinwizj]

@Jokton

Will this change be retroactive to all active events?

What happens for much smaller events that are full of top players, like SCS? To me it seems like someone who makes state finals should not get penalized if they finish low, since they already proved their worth by qualifying? (along the same vein as everyone gets paid at state)

Yes that formula change will be retroactive, so for any event of greater than 128 players, if you finished in the top half of the field (but not 1st place), you’ll see your WPPR’s increased.

Smaller events won’t be impacted because they won’t hit this player threshold count. For anyone that wants to skip SCS, or World’s, or SPC Finals, or anything other invitational event with ‘all good players’ for fear of the impact on their Eff%, I’m sure an alternate will be available down the list that would be willing to take that spot.

[Oz314]

@pinwizj

This would lead to a massive exploit of players being far more motivated to focus on Eff% in 2024 by only playing in ‘easy tournaments’, because they would get to apply that inflated Eff% to a WPPR card full of old results.

That sounds like you are saying that if people had full information about the new system and knew what rules applied, it wouldn’t work.

@pinwizj

It’s currently May 10, 2023. By the time any of this matters it’ll be January 1, 2025. There’s already 19 months of future activity that hasn’t happened yet. Feel free to get a head start now on whatever strategy you want to run with to enjoy yourself as best as you can.

Please explain more. Your first post says this goes into effect Jan 2024. Where does 2025 and 19 months come from?

@pinwizj

If we end up finding a way to create the Eff% calculation with decay, but the time it’s January 1, 2025, all of that 2022 activity will have half of the impact it has today. All of that 2023 activity will have 75% of the impact it has today.

That’s a pretty big If. If I remember correctly from this thread, Corey was pushing for that, but you deferred it to Shep who said “maybe someday”. Doesn’t sound likely.

Please don’t alter the past results. Find a way to do this fairly.

[JoeTheDragon]

@pinwizj

Yes that formula change will be retroactive, so for any event of greater than 128 players, if you finished in the top half of the field (but not 1st place), you’ll see your WPPR’s increased.

but will the SCS, or World’s field be locked / graded under the old rules for 2023 (but some events don’t report till after the next year) for the finals that happen in 2024?
as on jan 1 2024? the WPPR will change for 2023 events? and that can push someone in or out.

[pinwizj]

@Oz314

Please explain more. Your first post says this goes into effect Jan 2024. Where does 2025 and 19 months come from?

All IFPA related qualifying stuff is decided at the start of every year. For players looking to qualify for World’s, or move themselves up into the top 1000, etc. the ‘during the year activity’ doesn’t mean a whole lot. It’s only the end of the season that truly has real world value (outside of ego related stuff throughout the year).

January 1, 2024 closing of the rankings will be based on the current formula. The January 1, 2025 closing of the rankings will be the first time things would be based on v6.0.

@Oz314

That’s a pretty big If. If I remember correctly from this thread, Corey was pushing for that, but you deferred it to Shep who said “maybe someday”. Doesn’t sound likely.

You must know Brian pretty well to make the judgement of this “doesn’t sound likely”.

@Oz314

Please don’t alter the past results. Find a way to do this fairly.

IMO we are doing this fairly. We’re not altering your past results. We’re simply taking all of those past results and making an additional evaluation of your performance.

There is still that disconnect of “if I only knew I wouldn’t have played in any events at the Collective”, however the data supports that if you went that route your overall ranking would be worse.

For anyone that is privileged enough to have these opportunities to compete at a pace that far exceeds the amount of play that most humans have access to, this privilege is still an advantage. I’ll continue to say that because it’s not hyperbole, it’s fact. The advantage however has been restricted compared to it being completely unrestricted in the past.

@JoeTheDragon

but will the SCS, or World’s field be locked / graded under the old rules for 2023 (but some events don’t report till after the next year) for the finals that happen in 2024?
as on jan 1 2024? the WPPR will change for 2023 events? and that can push someone in or out.

We always create a “history” table that locks in the rankings as of January 1st based on whatever rules were used during the previous calendar year. That will continue to be the way we do it going forward.