Yeah if you are in a queue without entries and try and submit to a scorekeeper….that’s a paddlin’. Try and buy an entry after landing a good score in the queue and having zero entries……that’s a paddlin’.
2 Likes
@pinwizj the logic of rewarding a Limited Plus Certified event as a better quality format l than the current Limited Certified still doesn’t make sense.
Using the TPF Limited Certified as an example — due to familiarity, I don’t run it any more, and the new TDs have abandoned it, so no dog in this hunt:
Limited Certified:
- 12 games counted. So far more data being used than any “5 games count” format, whether Herb or Card.
- the 12 games needed to count was an INCREASE from 8, in order to be deemed “higher quality” to garner the Certified status.
- the 12 games is only deemed as 12 MGP, because they’re at 1x.
- 15 pins available to play.
- 25 limited entries available.
- 20+ hours of qualifying
LIMITED PLUS:
- only 5 games count.
- 20+ hours of qualifying
- a 4x multiplier for Entries vs pins available.
- so you could have just 5 pins available, and only give 20 entries. And yet this would be deemed a 15 MGP from the 5 games counting at 3x.
Please help me understand how the 2nd tourney is better quality, getting 80% TGP (15 games and 20% from hours)
Vs first tourney at only 48% TGP (12 games and no % from hours)??
Doesn’t make sense to me.
Texas was my example way above. The “limited is too few games to sort as effectively as unlimited” argument is weaker when the total number of limited games is high. Ideally, you want players to be able to play each machine that will count multiple times to get a feel for them, especially when there’s no practice or, as with Texas, not enough practice time to thoroughly check each game out. (I’ve rarely been able to get any sense of even half the games there during practice). Four X gives everyone a chance to scope everything out effectively - - one or two games to experiment and maybe score well in the process, the remainder to get it done.
But as I say, the more total games involved, the more even limited improves at sorting. One could make a plausible argument that at -some- number of total games, limited is almost as effective as capped unlimited. My gut feel is that 25 is too few when 12 will count, but once we get in the 40 plays zone, you might be there regardless of how many games count.
My Math Hat would say “mathematical limit as game count rises of Limited effectiveness approaches Unlimited Capped effectiveness.”
More thought required, may post others later.
The Certified rules for Limited were definitely based on trying to make sure tournaments like Expo and TPF were covered. It was less about anything else.
The right way to do it and likely what we’ll move to:
LIMITED → Minimum 5 games count, 20 hours of qualifying, entry total must be at least 2X the amount of machines being used (4% TGP per game played)
UNLIMITED → Minimum 5 games count, 20 hours of qualifying (8% TGP per game played)
HYBRID → Minimum 5 games count, 20 hours of qualifying, entry total must be exactly 4X the amount of machines being used (12% TGP per game played)
2 Likes
So each player must get at least X tickets (not that they have to use all of them)
No entry total minimum? Should there still be some minimum X amount of machines?
(not that they have to use all of them)
Now for this what will be the official way IFPA counts machines?
And how will / how much flex be allowed for
Replacing games?
Removing games?
Adding games?
ETC?
This is my favorite question you’ve ever asked.
5 Likes
While I could argue with statistics for further refinement, one must consider operational ease and player comprehension as necessary constraints. As such, I like the proposal above. Yes, I sometimes agree with Josh.
2 Likes
So for the now-RIP TPF Limited format, all we’d have to do is change the # of entries from 25 to 60 (15 pins available x 4)… and voila! Qualifying is now worth 144% instead of 48%?
I think the old TPF format would also have to become unlimited. The early label of “Limited plus” was a bit confusing and made it seem like the change was targeting limited tournaments. But this is really about issues related only to unlimited formats.
Why make it unlimited? Just make it the “HYBRID” by giving 60 limited entries, and bam! 12% TGP per qualifying game that counts.
In effect, it would be unlimited, because other than the Kottman’s of the world, players wouldn’t be getting 60 entries actually played.
But that doesn’t matter… there would be a hard cap of 60, making it HYBRID.
To prevent people from gaming the system by offering 4X when there’s only time to play 2X, use a system like for Pingolf and its 3 stroke average benchmark: if the average number of entries PLAYED is too far below 4X, it gets degraded. If 2X is typical for Limited worth 4%, say an average of 3.7+ counts at 12%, 3.3 to 3.7 at 10%, 3.0 to 3.3 at 8%, 2.5 to 3 at 6%, under 2.5 stays at 4% for exanple. WIP
Oh we’ll have no problem absolutely fucking people who try to mess with this one. We look forward to it 
It looks like a Hybrid Best Game that planned in a way where players don’t use all of their entries is functionally similar to Unlimited Best Game. If that happens would IFPA give the 8% per machine counted or do you think there’s a need to be more punitive?
1 Like
Probably depends on the mood of our staff the first time we have to deal with this 
1 Like
Yeah, this is what I was alluding to (a Limited becoming effectively Unlimited). And the adjustment down to 8% seems like a reasonable solution
1 Like
I haven’t seen any follow-up on the “no picking the same games every round” issue. I’d still like to see Certified events require it. Certainly should.
I disagree on this one. I think it’s a perfectly fine thing for a TD to balance how much of an advantage they want to provide for those top qualifiers.
My philosophy for IFPA World’s is that you have to survive the gauntlet of 24 random games being thrown at you throughout qualifying, that you’ve earned the right to pick your horses when it comes to the life & death rounds of finals. By design I want to see the world’s best players battle on the games they feel strongest on against one another.
I also know TD’s that don’t like seeing the amount of collusion that can come with this kind of picking process. Those that are in the ‘cool kids club’ can often find a way to defer some picks knowing they have a co-pilot who can help them through the process. This can be disheartening for those that aren’t part of this ‘cool kids club’.
2 Likes
I find this less of an issue for World’s as you say, BUT still an issue for any events where you qualify on a bank of games. If you want to not apply this to World’s, fine, but please reconsider regarding limited, unlimited and hybrid where you can now both qualify and win while playing only a third of the games there. Reread my original post.
I read the original post . . . then read it again . . . then read it backwards just to be thorough.
This comes from someone not in the ‘cool kids club’.