Intergalactic Pinball Championship Feedback

Events
21

This is a great point. for all IG players: if you’re next up player, be at the floor-tape line ready to play while the person on the game is playing, with no headphones while you wait, so you can here scorekeepers. This will cut down on “dead time” between games, and save scorekeepers’ hassle — and their voices.

@Slamtilt I’d suggest specific training for scorekeepers to only announce the next-up player’s name once, and if no one responds, instruct them to immediately go down the list to next player(s). But in that situation, also train them to tap on the next “red bar” player that is present. Specifically instruct scorekeepers to not remove players from queue — set neverdrains to auto-remove after three “skips.”

5 Likes
22

I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but has any consideration been given to playoff formats other than a knockout?

23

This, along with an additional 10-15 second wait time between the announcement is something I’ll try to get the scorekeepers to.

@jdelz I have thought about a couple different formats to try and use, however there are some challenges I’d need to overcome.

First, the “10% of the field must move to finals from indirect play” rule may end up bringing more finalists in to a given format that may not be best suited for a high number of players. As we continue to see the number of players grow, this will continue to be an issue - potentially a time prohibitive problem even for the strikes format we use now.

Second - as mentioned above, is time. I need to make sure that a given format is going to allow enough time for IPC to finish their finals while offering adequate time to WIPT to finish their finals before the hard GTFO of the convention center time comes. Im hesitant to roll the dice on a new finals format and run out of time when we have something that’s worked for us the past couple of years. It’s not my favorite answer, but it’s the best one I have at the moment.

It’s been something I’ve really been turning my wheels on, but for 2020 we will likely use the strikes format.

1 Like
24

Candid feedback -

In contrast to Pinburgh proper, IGC seemed really poor in comparison.

It feels like the TDs are trying to get the tournament over as quickly as possible, at the expense of having an event that is competitive.

Best area for improvement would be the finals IMO. Pick a traditional finals format like papa style, or pinburgh style, let top seeds pick game/position etc and go from there. For example, strikes with random drawn games is a laughable format in comparison imo.

Last years finals (and previous years) seemed rushed and slapped together. I mean it makes sense, Pinburgh is the focus. But if people want IGC to be a thing, make it a thing.

2 Likes
25

I’ve spent some time developing a Google Sheet model with the data from last year’s event and have figured out a way to input alternate scoring scales, which then re-evaluates how many points each person would have had, and if they would added or dropped from the Finals (Top 56 Players).

Link to the spreadsheet is here. Anyone can feel free to clone it to input their own point scales and see the results. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/120eh4n-o2e3rknwAqLmR-TQEEjmi-zoqPkzjCfiiyfU/edit?usp=sharing

INDISC Scoring (500 point scale, 500-490-485-484-etc)
Because it’s simply the Intergalactic Scoring + 300, there are no fundamental shifts in the top half of the field. The biggest changes are people who had a 4th score that was really low, or didn’t play a 4th game.

Straight Line (200 Point Scale, 200-199-198-etc)
Cut Line is exactly the same.
Biggest Losers: Cards with 1sts and 2nds
Biggest Gainers: Cards with 3rds and 4ths

Straight Line (500 Point Scale, 500-499-498-etc)
Cut Line is exactly the same. Bottom 1/3 of the standings is shaken up because attempts give you points that count instead of Zeros
Biggest Droppers: Cards with 1sts and 2nds
Biggest Gainers: Cards with 3rds and 4ths

97.5% Modified Decay Rate (200 Point Scale, 200-195-190-185-181-177-etc. Bonus Points for being in Top 12)
4 Players Switch from In to Out
4 Players Switch from Out to In
image

Biggest Droppers:
Those with scores generally outside the Top 12
image

Biggest Gainers:
Those with multiple Top 12 scores
image

97.5% Modified Decay Rate + 300 Base (500 Point Scale, 500-495-490-485-481-477-etc. Bonus Points for being in Top 12)
Very similar to the 200-Point setup, except the bottom 1/3 of the standings are all shaken up because of giving points to the worst scores on a game.

**@BMU’s Go-For-Broke (40 Point Scale, 40-35-20-26-22-19-16-etc. Points for Top 20 ONLY)
Now this is a fun one!
24 Players Switch from In to Out!
27 Players Switch from Out to In! (multiple people tied at 52, so it’s more than the people who are dropped out)

image
image471×550 19.5 KB

image
image472×617 20.8 KB

Biggest Droppers: Those who don’t have a Top 3 score
Biggest Gainers: Those with a Top 3 Score, but with an otherwise not great card.

Modified Decay Rate + 400 Base (500 Point Scale, 500-490-481-473-466-459-etc. Bonus Points for being in Top 40)

The last one I’ll throw out there for tonight is a new one. It’s a 90% Decay, but with 400 points tacked on. This would award you extra points if you’re in the Top 40, and you get more bonus points the higher up you go.
6 Players Switch from In to Out
7 Players Switch from Out to In (multiple people tied at 52, so it’s more than the people who are dropped out)
image

Biggest Droppers: Those who have four consistent scores hovering in the mid 20’s
Biggest Gainers: Those with two Great Scores and two Just OK scores

For anyone copying the Sheet to play with it on their own, you can make changes to scoring on the “Scales” tab. Renaming the column should make that change everywhere, but it’ll take Google Sheets a good 60 seconds to re-run all the calculations.

My recommendation is to use @BMU’s “Go For Broke” Scale because it means that I would have made Finals last year, so clearly we should do that this year and make sure to include BoneBusters so I can get a 2nd again.

5 Likes
26

Can you try a top 40 only version, say 100 95 90 86 82 79 76 73 70 67 64 61 58 55 52 50 48 46 …

27

Try Herb original recipe [10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1] for top 10 … And that’s it.

1 Like
28

“Top 40 Hits” and “Herb Original Recipe” have been added to the sheet:

Top 40 Hits
Cards with a Top 10 are more likely to get in.
Cards with mid-teens and lower are likely to be out

image
image473×609 21.7 KB

Herb Original Recipe
Cards with a single great score (1,2,3,4) end up in.
Cards outside the Top 10, not surprisingly, are out.

image
image437×554 16.5 KB

image
image441×781 24.7 KB

29

I’m leaning towards the Top 40 version: gotta have multiple good games, not locked out by one dog, but can’t get in with 4 good but no excellent games. If you don’t have at least one top ten …

The other reason I like it is while you can’t qualify with just one good game, a higher portion of the players will still have a chance starting game 4. Fewer meaningless last games, and yes, lots of people going for broke in game 4.

30

image
image586×584 108 KB

2 Likes
31

Only awarding points to the top X (X being small relative to total players) is bonkers. I thought we’d evolved to a better place than to consider taking a step backwards. Doing so also drastically inflates the value of waiting until the end of the qualifying window to make your entries.

Just add points to correctly and accurately differentiate between all scores (the +400 route that INDISC used worked fine).

The modified decay rate stuff is mathematically cool, but less clear on how many points between each rank (because it’s inconsistent), and I don’t think it’s wise to confuse the players. If a bonus is given, give it to the top two. Keep it simple.

FYI: INDISC this year used 500-495-490-489…

1 Like
32

Our INDISC scoring is fine for most events (see my voluminous previous posts on score systems), I’d just like to see one large tournament do something different, just like we have 24 hour event to be different.

33

My two cents. Games quality and listed modifications. I don’t remember which games but I would say 4/10 were not up to the standard I expect for this type of event and a couple machines had modified rules without any notes. With only 10 ties, I need games to work and rules to be clear. An example was ST Pro had Klingon Multible disabled but it showed locks lit. I spent my ball 3 trying to start the MB and thought is was just a switch issue…

34

And I spent three hours waiting to even play ST… only to find that the left orbit backhand was way the hell off, after getting practice games in on the Pinburgh bank one (this was Saturday).

“Disabled” was probably not the best word to describe the lack of Klingon MB. IIRC, it was indeed a switch issue involving the center target/lock. The end result was still it being unattainable - hence my alternate strategy - milk the Galactic Away Teams of spinner-heavy modes.

Rule #1 of PAPA/Pinburgh: the spinners are juiced. Unless it’s Johnny Mnenomic.

35

Star trek pro was a last minute entry to replace revenge from Mars which died. It was a Pinburgh game which had been pulled Thursday due to needing repair. During repair, virtual locks were turned on unintentionally. (Don’t get me started on why that’s a setting or why it causes Klingon multiball to be disabled) We didn’t want Klingon multiball disabled. When we discovered the issue (thanks Gavin for spending an hour figuring out it was a setting) several tens of games had already been played. At that point the decision was made to clearly label the game as having Klingon disabled and let all prior games stand. We felt enabling Klingon multiball was unfair to the dozens of games already played. Had it been discovered after only a few games played I would have fixed the setting and refunded the used entries. I felt too many games had been played to make this a viable solution.

1 Like
36

Regarding other games for the past 2 years, I can’t recall any gotcha settings intentionally made. Anything known to be unusual or atypical we made a point to have displayed on the backglass. Tilt ends game, Addams magnet disabled. These were displayed. We were very aware that there were only ten entries per person and weren’t trying to fool anyone. I also don’t recall a single person asking about any specific settings, and i would have happily answered anything asked.

I will say i regret not labeling devil dare as having a manually triggered kickback.

37

Now in an case of needing to do that should people also get que jumps as well?

38

It’s a great question. I’d tend to say yes.

39

I believe I played this game very early in the tournament and told the scorekeeper. You would have to check the records. It’s May have had a lot of plays or just not reported. This is Robert Byers if you want to pull the game logs to see. Either way, if someone reports an issue the scorekeeper need to know to stop games until it’s checked. It would have been nice to post to offer people the choice to replace that game score or play again once the issue was found. I had a good game that could have been much better had I known.

Otherwise, I love the event overall. I was just surprised at game quality this specific year.

I also agree with Cayle that the finals where top seed and bottom seed have the same random games selections. Top seeds should be able to at least select a game or maybe an extra strike for the top 10 and one less strike for the bottom 10. Something to reward qualifying play.

40

The severity of issues doesn’t always bubble up the way it should. In the end, Gavin spent an hour looking for switch issues before discovering it was virtual locks. Ideally that would have happened after 2 plays instead of twenty. I don’t know where the failure was in discovering the issue sooner. Player, scorekeeper, tech, TD. Something in that chain didn’t work as quickly as it should have. It might have been me. It wasn’t the intention to hide no Klingon from the players.