I’ve been ranting for this for a while. I am so much on the side of wanting this. This would be amazing. Seriously.
I’m tired of lame formats designed to exploit wppr points. I’m so tired of playing crap formats, where people just come up with whatever because they think it sounds cute, neat, or they just don’t know better to no fault of their own.
As the description noted, this doesn’t need to deter anyone from a new format, but it would be an amazing suggestive guide for events that want to pick a format and just don’t know what to do.
And, I wouldn’t have much granularity to it - basically make it like these formats get full points, these get 3/4, these get half, these get 1/4. - with the standard modifiers for caliber of players that enter, and # of participants.
I think the other suggestions in the OP are boring or just badly conceived, so I wont comment on them.
What if you did Top 15 AND last 5 or Top 20 AND last 5? Or some variation of both top point earning tourneys and recent results. I think maybe this would be the best for accuracy purposes. Any overlap could be counted as a recent result.
Instead of doing this, use the first suggestion of standardization and force TDs to submit true head-to-head or match play results which can then be used for an accurate Glicko rating
If only such an amazing suggestive guide existed . . . oh wait
I get tons of emails to the IFPA inbox requesting help on setting up a format, they have no idea what to do, and no idea how these various formats will grade out.
Knowing that we’ve accounted for:
Single Elim
Double Elim
2 Strikes (various group combinations)
3 Strikes (various group combinations)
4 Strikes (various group combinations)
Match Play
Ladder style
We are literally already doing what you’re asking for 95% of the tournaments existing.
If you have a group of 16 players for example, and running something at “full value” is important to you, regardless of time you can scroll up and down the TGP guide to find the standard set of tournament formats that will work for you.
I think the 5% of organizers that run “crazy shit” get more attention on Tilt Forums because we’re sort of the niche of the niche who are more crazy about competitive pinball than most.
Been wanting this for 10+ years, but understood why it couldn’t be done. One of the things that MANY people don’t realize TODAY is many things couldn’t have been done years ago. Back then, getting results was a PITA. As the overall landscape grows, layers and rules and structure can be added. I think the time has came for “here is the approved list of formats” day has came as well.
No idea how this grades a tournament and seems like it would give a huge advantage to pump n dump tournaments. Just because a bunch of crappy players play a ton of games, doesn’t mean the tournament was more difficult or not.
This would make for a very stale rankings system and doesn’t encourage play which is kinda the point…
Fair point. A tournament with Elwin, Bowen, Cayle and Trent should be valued the same as 4 random people pulled off the street.
FWIW, I’m writing this as neither an endorsement or critique of the concept as proposed…
I actually think the less skilled players rarely play a ton of games and the data is likely to back that up. From looking at entry results in INDISC this year, the below average contingent is playing far less than most of the qualifiers with perhaps a slight bubbling up of players at and a bit below the cut lines. So as I see it, this would provide an advantage to pump and dump tournaments (as you correctly identify) but because the better players are spending more money to make sure they beat the other better players, and not because below average players are padding the results. I’d be really surprised if there were other unlimited tournaments where data showed the opposite, though I’d love to be proven wrong.
I have no specific comments with regards to any of the proposed changes but I’m grateful that you’ve taken the time to ask for some dialog on the subject with the community at large. I really think the IFPA should be more transparent and proactive prior to versioning the system instead of being reactionary and using whatever blowback and exploits are discovered in developing the next set of revisions.
And I lied, I do have a comment… I wonder if with the new attendance/full ticket requirement, and bonus multipliers for running finals formats, if we could lose the direct play requirement. I still see no reason I can’t run a simple, reasonable, one afternoon/evening event, sans a playoff, that can’t have the results count towards the rankings, when it’s clearly not any sort of attempt to “game the system.” Yes, it won’t be worth as much, but now it’s worth nothing, and I think that’s a shame.
I know there is a sense that I just decide stuff and off we go, but any of the changes that are eventually implemented are discussed at length amongst the IFPA Board. Often times those Country Directors are reaching out to their individual player bases for feedback on potential changes, and I know I definitely do that within the US with a group of players that I trust (of various skill levels).
Announcing proposed changes ahead of time is our way of being transparent. There is plenty of time before 2017 starts that if there is some solid debate on changing something for the better . . . we have the time to make the changes to our changes.
Consider the proposed changes for WPPR v5.3 as just that . . . PROPOSALS. Any feedback is appreciated and we still have 6 months before implementation.
I disagree. If the Detroit Pistons had run the table to win the NBA Finals this year, beating the Warriors in 7 games, would that make them the best team this year? NO WAY. Finals are a cultural thing here that for some reason we’re far too enamored with. If you think so highly of finals, then to be consistent, the Player of the Year race should have the top 4 / 8 / 16 ranked people on December 31st all meet somewhere for a playoff to decide who is #1.
Reducto absurdum: 64-player event, tons of qualifying for a whole week. Top 8 players come back, play two 4-player games, top two from each taken, then one 4 player game for the title. The playoff requirement says the event has 0 value without those 3 games, vs. full value of 32 + player add-on, totaling 50 or more, with them. So those three little games add 50 points of value compared to how many hundred or thousand games were played in qualifying? Fails the smell test miserably. So only one event on the PGA tour would count each year, the Match Play Championship. All of the other stroke play events are worthless. Suuuure, tell it to Spieth.
It’s all a testosterone “gotta smash heads for it to count” thing.
I’ve been the #1 qualifier for Pinburgh, PAPA and IFPA . . . and that doesn’t make me feel like I was the best of anything because I failed when it counted the most in each of those situations
(This is where I would let out the loudest F-bomb as I just picked a scab that I can’t heal from, but for Dunlap’s sake we’ll let out a good FART!!!)
Golf analogies are pointless because stroke play for golf is ‘the norm’. Our pinball majors support that a direct play finals component is ‘the norm’ for our sport.
I’ve never been so naive to think that you do this by yourself (I know there is a board) but I’ve never had the sense that any of this was done with much input from the community, in a public way, prior to making changes either. It’s always seemed to me that any input was gained silently, carefully considered behind closed doors, and a system decided on and announced to the public without any opportunity for commentary or adjustment. So really, this is my roundabout way of saying “thanks for asking.”
And of course finals are fun, sometimes the most fun, but I still strongly believe every type of event shouldn’t have to have them to be considered worthy of at least some fraction of ranking points.
