Not at this time. Typically we need to see a pretty strong trend before wanting to implement something to bring things back into a balance.
I haven’t seen multi-match-play happening enough yet to warrant us jumping in.
This thread just reminds me that I still want to ran a 6-player match play event sometime if I could get access to enough machines. It would probably be the worst or greatest tournament ever. Similar to the min WPPRs all stars tournament, which I can’t decide if it was a great or horrible idea.
2 Likes
Get six machines and run a six player multi-match-play! Can even just be six copies of Six Million Dollar Man!
4 Likes
I want a bunch of segas, a can crusher, a six million dollar man. Variety is the key.
1 Like
Lexi (P3) will let you do 6 as well (if more more)
1 Like
The reason I asked was because I made a fool of myself and additionally came to realise that I have reported my own gigs too low (never mind that). And now when I know the why, I am actually surprised.
In humble fashion, I recommend keeping it simple and stick with the effective efford it takes to win. Number of games. As it used to be (with 2,5 for best of 3 and such).
If the time vs TGP renders some formats less desirable, so be it. Nobody is preventing TDs from choosing this format if they like it.
Thanks for explaining.
Your opinion of “so be it” is duly noted. We discussed this to death internally prior to making the change, and clearly our opinion is just different on this one.
2 Likes
Out now! New IFPA-WPPR Tournament Rom!
- Fixes 4 player group scoring.
Also fixes these other things!
- WPPR rank 250+ earn double points in tournaments because it is harder for them.
- Tournaments with Baywatch have Triple wpprs.
- Johnny Modica multiplies wpprs in any event by 37/61 ths.
10 Likes
6 player multimatchplay wouldn’t meet our requirements for sanction as the maximum group size for direct head to head play is capped at 4, anything else is considered indirect. So you would still need to add in some 4 player multimatchplay somewhere in order to meet sanction requirements
1 Like
I would need to go back, but I feel like @pinwizj in the past said something along the lines of, that is such a ridiculous idea, I would allow it.
1 Like
As someone who comes up with many ridiculous ideas ( I prefer to call them brilliant plans) and runs with them I want very much for this event to happen. So I can second that @pinwizj did say this, but I am also too lazy to track down the thread and quote.
1 Like
I did say it, but I also said I would do something like 30X TGP lol.
I’d be fine counting it as “Direct Play” and doing it with the 3X multiplier.
My interest in seeing this executed is making this possible 
5 Likes
@pinwizj, since this thread has been necroed now anyway, here’s something I’ve been wondering about:
What’s the definition of the “qualifying portion” of a tournament, or more specifically, does it make sense to always consider the first stage of a multi-staged tournament its “qualifying portion”, regardless of whether that stage is direct play or not? Whenever the rules talk about the qualifying portion, there’s always language like “qualifying attempts”, “(un)limited qualifying attempts”, etc., and I feel like the “eliminate 50% of players, else it’s seeding” rule was made specifically for non-direct-play qualifying situations, to avoid people exploiting pre-tournament play for TGP.
The reason I’m asking is that this can be awkward for multi-staged direct-play-only tournaments, where I want a specific number of players in each stage for the formats to make sense. Like, I want to start with 2^n players, so that’s how many players I go for, and eliminate down to 2^(n-1) for the second stage, but if only one doesn’t show up, that’s it, first stage doesn’t count. Can’t take more registrations, either, just to be safe, because there’s no place for more players in the format. That wouldn’t be an issue at all if I had an actual “qualifying portion”, where I can take an arbitrary number of players and just eliminate however many I need to for the direct play formats to work–but most tournaments in my neck of the wood don’t do it this way.
So, I guess this boils down to, what was the thinking behind the “eliminate 50%” rule, and does that actually apply to direct-play-only tournaments?
I wonder how helpful it would be to, regardless of format, change that 50% rule to something like 55%. That would give leeway on a capped format (say, 64 players max), so if one or two people don’t show up, you can still take the top 32 without screwing up your next phase of the tournament.
4 Likes
Practically speaking, that would go a long way towards making this a non-issue.
From a rules consistency perspective, there’s the question, though, why this rule should apply to only the first stage of a tournament and not the later stages. For the tournaments I think the rule was originally written for, the answer is probably because the first stage isn’t direct play and allows for TGP exploits. For direct-play-only tournaments I don’t think this makes much sense, since there isn’t a fundamental difference between the stages.
Pretty sure the rule applies to all stages.
Direct play or not
Oh interesting I guess that makes sense for ladder formats
IMO I think the rule is there not for the fairness of TGP but for the integrity of pinball tournaments and making sure people who go to a tournament get to have fun and guarantee a certain level of quality. Would you really want to go to a 100 person tournament where you play three games against people and the top 4 make final four? Basically anyone who got 1st-1st-1st? It’s like launch parties all over again…
That’s the argument for the 10% rule. But you’re talking about the 50% rule, right? Hmmm yeah I thought for a while and I actually can’t give a good reason why it should be allowed in finals but not qualifying… I guess because by definition the first round is QUALIFYING and any other later rounds are FINALS and thus are just plain treated differently.
1 Like