ACS Changes & Hall of Fame

The following changes will apply to the *next* ACS qualifying year, commencing 1 January, 2018 with the final in early 2019 (date and host city TBA):

1. The field for the ACS final will increase from 32 players to 48.

2. Only the best 20 results for each player during the calendar year will count. This is in line with the American SCS and Canadian PCS.

Australia is *not* implementing a endorsement fee at this stage. In North America, a $1 per player per tournament fee is being introduced, with accrued funds forming the cash prize pools for the State/Provincial Championship Series and US Nationals. While this won't be happening here in 2018, we are considering bringing it in from 2019, to boost the profile of the ACS. I'd like to hear from players and organisers who have any feedback regarding this proposal.

2. Only the best 20 results for each player during the calendar year will count. This is in line with the American SCS and Canadian PCS.

Finally! I think that makes a lot more sense.

Michi.

I agree with the best 20 results,by $1 per player per comp only puts money into top players pocket,with the Queensland Championship being held next week yes it was $1 per player for prize money but they earn't there spot. And because of this did they do not have to pay a entry fee,either pay entry fee or $1 per player per com Has to be one or the other cannot be both.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Australia is *not* implementing a endorsement fee at this stage. In North America, a $1 per player per tournament fee is being introduced, with accrued funds forming the cash prize pools for the State/Provincial Championship Series and US Nationals. While this won't be happening here in 2018, we are considering bringing it in from 2019, to boost the profile of the ACS. I'd like to hear from players and organisers who have any feedback regarding this proposal.

Personally, I don't mind paying the extra dollar. But this fee proposal opens the same eternal can of worms that was discussed ad nauseam on Tilt Forums. I'm not sure that it is entirely fair to collect a dollar from all players that attend a tournament during the year when most of them have no chance of ever making it to the ACS finals or, if they do, getting into the placings that have a payout. In effect, the fee would be a tax on everyone to give to a few elite players.

But, more importantly, I'm not sure that having a large prize pool is going to make things better, or boost the ACS profile, for that matter. The more money is involved, the more serious things get, the more incentive there is to game the system somehow, and the less fun things are overall.

I would prefer to have the participants in the ACS pay a tournament fee to cover costs and have some prize money for the winners, rather than taxing everyone.

Michi.

Personally, I don't mind paying the extra dollar. But this fee proposal opens the same eternal can of worms that was discussed ad nauseam on Tilt Forums. I'm not sure that it is entirely fair to collect a dollar from all players that attend a tournament during the year when most of them have no chance of ever making it to the ACS finals or, if they do, getting into the placings that have a payout. In effect, the fee would be a tax on everyone to give to a few elite players.

 

But, more importantly, I'm not sure that having a large prize pool is going to make things better, or boost the ACS profile, for that matter. The more money is involved, the more serious things get, the more incentive there is to game the system somehow, and the less fun things are overall.

 

I would prefer to have the participants in the ACS pay a tournament fee to cover costs and have some prize money for the winners, rather than taxing everyone.

 

Michi.

Totally agree.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sorry if this is covered elsewhere, but what's ACS?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Aussie Arcade mobile app

Sorry if this is covered elsewhere, but what's ACS?

 

Sent from my SM-G900I using Aussie Arcade mobile app

It's the Australian Championship Series.

Each and every IFPA-endorsed pinball tournament held in Australia counts as a qualifying event. The players who accrue the most ranking points over a calendar year are invited to compete in the final for the title of IFPA Australian Pinball Champion. The final moves from city to city each year; the last one was in Melbourne, and the next one will be in Adelaide.

It's a dollar! If you're playing in tournaments then by the sounds of things you'll want to go to the ACS. If not then play in a local tournament that isn't IFPA and doesn't give you those magical points so you can attend the ACS simples! Otherwise pay a dollar to do so.

The 20 best tournaments will take away those players that are there because they participated in 60+ tournaments over the year. I was never going to attend even half that many tournaments in a year let alone 1/3 so what shot did I have against someone playing 60+ tournaments?

It's not going to make anyone rich it's there to help bring in the better players. I'm sure that extra $1000 or so would help Eddy, PJ or those that HAVE to take annual leave because their job involves working weekends like a plumber or electrician. He'll I might even attend a few more tournaments

Great news @LCM

We currently have the $1 per player set up for most of the monthly tournaments here in QLD, culminating in the QLD State Championship on next weekend. Winner earns airfares accommodation and entry for ACS in Adelaide (if eligible). This is the first time we have tried something like this, but haven't really received much in the way of negative feedback thus far. Plus it has been advertised right from the start that all players who qualify earn FREE ENTRY into the final. But the main goal of setting up qualifying like this was to help increase participation at each of the monthly events here in QLD - which I think has worked.

We'll see how things pan out next weekend, but it appears that it will return in 2018.

As for taking the best 20 results, does this mean that players will have to end up playing in a minimum of 20 tournaments?

As for taking the best 20 results, does this mean that players will have to end up playing in a minimum of 20 tournaments?

In theory, I would think not. In practice, it seems likely, seeing that it'll be much harder to get enough points if I attend, say, only five tournaments (unless my name is Keith Elwin).

Michi.

Heh, I didn't even make it to 20 tournaments this year! Though that was a conscious choice to take a year off so that's kind of expected...

Interesting to hear the 20 limit come in. Josh must have decided to change the focus for this particular competition. It was always designed to reward a lot of play to encourage newer players. Now it's switching to more skill based. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

I'm cool with the $1 fee. The only thing that I'm concerned about is the extra administration overhead on tournament organisers with this system. Anything that makes their lives harder on top of the already stressful organisation could be a bad thing. I could see some very busy operators who run leagues be a bit anxious about this new system. But again, I'm happy to pay my $1 (it's a few bubbles less in that pint glass for me).

@Mar. I agree with the administration issue for new or current TD's. Lambo has made it look easy and it has created more work for him IMO. I'm sure he can comment. He is also VERY helpful in helping others. I think it is a great system and has worked flawlessly for the QLD comp nex week and not missed by many (the $1).

Makes sense about encouraging new players vs skill based. I've publicly stated I'm for skilled based comp but I'm still for encouraging new players. (that could be for another topic)

I'm sick of people saying it'll only go to a select few because I'm so rubbish I'll never win! Do you tell your children to stop playing the sport they might enjoy because they're not very good and they're never going to beat kid X who is awesome at said sport? No you tell them to keep try do their best and have fun!

To be honest I never thought I'd win Wildball! EVER! We have some of the best players in Australia playing in the league! We've got Mar, MUD, Dedrok, Brett, Cardini, Rawdon, Jagojp and others in there that are fantastic players! And you know what happened this year! I WON! It felt awesome! Did I think I had a chance to win yeah I had a shot but you know what I thought well Eddy and Brett are here I'm in trouble and then you've got Cardini and Rawdon well they grew up and love their EM/SS games I'm going to get smacked! But I held in there and had an above average game on eight ball deluxe in the final to pip Rawdon (I got to walk off too) for the Wildball win!

It's fun to compete and I don't think if you're playing in 60x comps that you're spending more than $1200 playing in said comps! So what's an extra 20% to help create larger pots at the bigger tournaments?

Well said mate and spot on. It also gives you goals and ambitions and when you achieve ...oh what a feeling! Do your best and have fun! - love itEverything in life is tough and you become a better stronger person in the future - sheesh I look at my daughters age group and think...what the?? - sorry went OT.

I remember the last batcave. Batcave is a gruelling test of the mind and body. My first goal was make the finals top 32, second goal was top 8, third goal top 4 and tertiary goal best in the 4-8 bracket.

To make the finals I was in the pool of death for the last round (MUD, Mar and I can't remember the last guy) and I was playing on Ski Jump which I'd never done well on, Medusa that I had mostly done well on then Iron Man where my thought was yup I've got a first place in the bag here on IM!!! First up Iron man and I f it! Come third to MUD and Mar. I've gone from confident to I'm f'd, I've got ski jump and I've never done well I'm out in not making the finals! I pull out a close first place finish on medusa and then some how have my best game ever on ski jump to knock Mar (who'd won the previous years batcave) out! I think I ended up 16th or something similar.

First round of playoffs came against greg segal where he touched me up on medusa damn near rolling the game! Second was my choice so naturally I went my beloved IM where I just beat him on ball 3. Next comes skateball another game I don't know the rules overly on but I keep the ball in play and Greg gets roughed up with house balls on all 3 balls!

And I do remember someone being super happy with top 4 and just getting pipped on game 3 in his semi final!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no problem with a $1 charge in principle, but having recently run a competition for the first time it seems like one more obstacle for tournament directors. I don’t collect money from players and the venue probably wouldn’t even allow me to, so I would have to pay the charge personally.

Norbert doesn’t collect money for his weekly comps at Coogee either, and he is currently the only tournament director organising regular IFPA competition in Sydney. I have no idea what his position would be on the $1 charge, but hypothetically if he decided to opt out of IFPA endorsement because of it, ACS qualification would hardly include any competitions from the biggest city in Australia- not a good result if the idea is to raise the profile of ACS. Again, I want to emphasise that I have no idea what Norbert’s attitude to a $1 charge would be, just making the point that for such a scheme to work it would need pretty much unanimous support from the people running the majority of tournaments.

- as to the notion that if you don't want to or don't aspire to play in the ACS then don't play in IFPA tournaments, what a load of elitist rubbish!

This is where I have difficulties, too. The vast majority of the tournaments that happen in the greater Brisbane region and the Gold Coast are for IFPA points. That's just how it is, like it or not. (There are a few purely social tournaments that aren't IFPA registered, but not many.)

If the $1 tax applies to everyone then, as you say, that's a lot of money that goes towards a single event, namely the ACS. To play there, I have to make the top 48 (or, more realistically, the top 60 or so, because a lot of people simply can't make it). But I also have to be rich enough to afford to fly to wherever the ACS is held, pay for accomodation and food, etc. Realistically, that's $500-$600 weekend, even if I do things on the cheap. There are lots of people who simply can't afford that.

Steve, I hear you when you say "never give up" and that outsiders do have a chance. But, realistically, if there is prize money for, say, the top four or five, that is a virtual guarantee that most people will never ever get a chance at the payout. Either they won't qualify to begin with or, if they do and actually attend, they won't make the top four or five.

So, I stand by my assessment that the $1 fee is a tax on everyone in order to give it to a select few.

As I said, I can afford the dollar per tournament, and won't bat an eyelid over it. But I do question the idea that everyone should pay in order to give a large prize to a few players at the ACS. I'd prefer seeing corporate sponsors put up prize money, rather than the money being taken out of the pockets of the grassroots community.

Michi.

- if I choose to play in the ACS, I should pay an entry fee and that entry fee goes towards running the event AND prize money. If they want more prize money, entrants pay more to enter.

But then what is the point of the competition? If ACS is to be a genuine national championship, then the prize money should reflect that. But because participation is restricted to the top players, then competitors are effectively buying in to a tough competition with a low chance of success. It becomes like a high-stakes poker game rather than a reward for the year's top players. So the money has to come from somewhere else. Whether a blanket $1 per player per comp is the best solution is another matter, but asking the finalists to create the pot themselves seems to me to defeat the purpose of the event.

But then what is the point of the competition? If ACS is to be a genuine national championship, then the prize money should reflect that

Hmmm… Why is that?

If I were to win the ACS, would I be any less of a national champion because all I got is a trophy and a handshake?

Would my win have been any more meaningful if I'd won $5000 instead? Would I be more of a national champion in that case?

Michi.

 

And I do remember someone being super happy with top 4 and just getting pipped on game 3 in his semi final!

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats what Im on about Nate!! Who would have thought that I had any chance and take out Rob and Edy - never in a million and then take on PJ and held a respectable defeat - best pinball comp in my "career". And thats what I'm on about, I want to play the best and to get there you got to do the hard yards ie, play the big comps against the best and do the hard yards. I play against Pete and as you said with kids, do the best you have and dont give up and believe in yourself. Both Pete & PJ have told me that. Its nice reading your story because I can appreciate what you're on about! Yours story is not OT because this is what we all aspire to if we play comp - to be the best

Hmmm… Why is that?

 

If I were to win the ACS, would I be any less of a national champion because all I got is a trophy and a handshake?

 

Would my win have been any more meaningful if I'd won $5000 instead? Would I be more of a national champion in that case?

 

Michi.

I suppose you could make a case that money is irrelevant, but if you're trying to establish ACS as THE event to win, then it seems strange not to offer significant cash prizes for the place-getters when that's what other large tournaments are doing.