Jump to content
Due to a large amount of spamers, accounts will now have to be approved by the Admins so please be patient. ×
IGNORED

Flip Frenzy Scoring/calculation idea


robm

Recommended Posts

Hey @ifpapinball Josh,

 

Mate I'm hoping you and the IFPA math/tech guy might be interested in providing to this thread an alternate 'IFPA Country Rankings for Australia' that excludes all Flip Frenzy events?

 

It seems to me there is a caucus of the census in this thread that 'Flip Frenzy's are a 'luck fest", with regard to sanctioned competitive pinball.

 

I call "Bullshit".

 

One of my plethora of opinion is that there is a significant amount of 'luck' involved in any game of pinball, however when it comes to competitive pinball, it's obvious that over time, there are those who have the skill to negate their 'luck' significantly more than others, and that 'Flip Frenzy' as a format, does not deviate to any relative significance from this competitive norm.

 

It is also my opinion that I'm a 'recidivist wanker'™.

 

I reckon the only real influence on competitive pinball that Flip Frenzy's have ascertained to date (aside from entertaining and introducing newbies, plus a hell of a lot more actual playing of pinball than any other IFPA sanctioned format) is a shorter path for Aussies to step higher in the World Rankings more than they otherwise would have been able to achieve at this juncture.

 

This post has nothing to do with collusion, cheating, or bending stuff, nor Rob's initial post.

 

I suspect you, Josh, trust Luke and Dan just as much as I do.

 

Cheers,

 

G

Edited by GEE
Added the wanker bit- No different to jagging add-a-ball after the grace period should have worn off
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

On the one ball game topic,

 

The issue I have is you play this type of game (1 ball) there would have to be a rule, make sure the game is over ie, it actually says the game is over or match is on the screen.

 

How many times have you fronted up to a game in FF and see a ball in the trough? Modern games you have to plunge, wait for ball save and then drain. That's been the biggest killer for me.

 

Ive had players concede and run off to say they lost and I'm left there plunging 4 balls

 

Now imagine with a 1 ball game?? Disqualify! I'd happily become an assistant to police this.

 

Flip Frenzy was one reason (albeit a smaller one ) why I haven't competed this year.

 

Its a great format for beginners as an intro to the scene and playing pinball - pity its so popular that you cant get a ticket after an hour of release because the regulars have snapped them up.

 

Yep thats a dig at seasoned players and not the venue/s.

 

I would love to see a flip frenzy for newbies or who arent ranked or not in the top 500.

 

Lets see how popular it is when theres only 1/3 of the points on tap

 

Only time will tell.

 

I like what G has said too - lets see a points table without Flip Frenzies.

 

Rant over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive had players concede and run off to say they lost and I'm left there plunging 4 balls

 

Now imagine with a 1 ball game?? Disqualify! I'd happily become an assistant to police this.

 

Players are clearly instructed to plunge all balls even in case of a forfeit, let alone the 1 ball issue.

In such a case I would just power cycle the game :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players are clearly instructed to plunge all balls even in case of a forfeit, let alone the 1 ball issue.

In such a case I would just power cycle the game :-)

 

"Clearly Instructed" obviously doesn't sink in. I gave up after dozen times telling people to wait till they plunge the balls and wait until the game is finished. I have on good authority that it still happens - I dont play much FF anymore to know for sure.

 

I dont have a great knowledge of pinballs but to me the worse thing you can do to electronic equipment is to power cycle continuously - only an opinion but I dont power cycle my computers, electronics, etc unnecessarily as the power surges are the most opportune time for euqipment at start up time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way to deal with conceded games is to have the winner go and report the result, and the loser plunge off the remaining balls.

 

Power cycling isn't quite as bad as people make it out to be, especially with modern equipment that has little heat dissipation. But I agree—power cycling every few minutes for several hours could shorten the lifespan of some components.

 

I have come across unfinished games during frenzies a few times (occasionally, not frequently). I think it's mildly annoying when it happens, but not that much of a big deal. Plunging off the remaining balls really isn't that onerous. I don't think people don't plunge off because they are selfish and don't care; more often than not, they just forget. If TDs remind people at the start of the comp, that'll help.

 

Michi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way to deal with conceded games is to have the winner go and report the result, and the loser plunge off the remaining balls.

 

Power cycling isn't quite as bad as people make it out to be, especially with modern equipment that has little heat dissipation. But I agree—power cycling every few minutes for several hours could shorten the lifespan of some components.

 

I have come across unfinished games during frenzies a few times (occasionally, not frequently). I think it's mildly annoying when it happens, but not that much of a big deal. Plunging off the remaining balls really isn't that onerous. I don't think people don't plunge off because they are selfish and don't care; more often than not, they just forget. If TDs remind people at the start of the comp, that'll help.

 

Michi.

 

I agree on the winner reporting...it will help.

 

Power cycling - youre right not as bad but then you agree with what I say :)

 

Unfinished games - it Pisses me off, not the fact of me actually plunging the balls but not following the rules and therefore to me, its advantageous outside the rules therefore cheating - that's the big deal. I disagree with the forgetfulness, maybe 1% - 5% forget - just from what I've experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey @ifpapinball Josh,

 

Mate I'm hoping you and the IFPA math/tech guy might be interested in providing to this thread an alternate 'IFPA Country Rankings for Australia' that excludes all Flip Frenzy events?

 

Unfortunately we can't do this unless I literally create a custom ranking and manually add every tournament within Australia that isn't a Flip Frenzy format.

 

With respect to skill not prevailing at this format versus other formats, I quickly looked up a bunch of FF results from 2018. Here's what I saw with respect to who won the event:

 

10th highest ranked player out of 62

8th highest out of 59

Top ranked player out of 19

2nd highest out of 56

Top ranked out of 52

5th highest out of 28

5th highest out of 41

3rd highest out of 40

Top ranked out of 37

Top ranked out of 35

12th highest out of 36

12th highest out of 38

15th highest out of 34

2nd highest out of 27

Top ranked out of 34

 

So out of 15 tournaments from 2018, the top ranked player going into the tournament won 1/3rd of them. Over half of them were won from players ranked within the top 10% of the field.

 

Outside of the Netherworld ones, which is really the only place where players outside of the top 10% of the field won the event, I'm not seeing anything outside of the ordinary with respect to the skill to luck ratio for the format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The skill part of these events is strategy more so than in normal comps. This would be the same for 1,2 or 3 ball games. Developing a strategy to get the most amount of points in the least amount of time thats where the more experienced player will benefit. Of course it takes some skill to hit up your opponent towards the end of the event and say "if you lose this game I win the comp"... provided it doesnt get found out about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...With concerns... about the flip frenzy format and ability to 'throw' games and not [be] in the spirit of IFPA comps, wondering if there is a way to calculate final scores through a formula that evens things out.

 

I know Ryza mentioned an idea on H2H about penalising losses by more - and that might work (eg: lose 0.5 point for a loss).

 

...surely there is a way to create a formula that would account for the win:loss ratio and somehow consider the total number of games played. I guess my thinking is that if someone gets selected on longer games, and is a very good player and say they have 8 wins and 0 losses, most would think this player is 'better' than someone who drew all short games and had 10 wins and 7 losses. So therefore the greatest reward should go to the person with the highest ratio or wins:losses, not the person who drew the most short games.

 

Eg: The formula could look like:

 

((Number or wins/number of losses + 1)/total number of games played) x 100

 

...I think the feeling is pretty universal that flip frenzy is a super fun format, so we would all like it to stay. The only danger of my suggestion (if it works mathematically), is it becomes a little complicated to explain.

 

Thoughts? @ifpapinball

 

During the first Aus Flip Frenzy my thoughts were that this format is awesome. I love playing pins, and found (and still do find) Tournament formats that forbid playing of pins a bit counter-productive.

 

Not long afterwood, my thoughts (those of someone who's played competitive sport since early childhood, and gone on in to adulthood to have a ten year period where my only income came from officiating sport) were that losses were not penalized in the wash-up, and therefore allowing for 'unfair/un-earned' IFPA placings. I'm glad to see that what was obvious back then, is now supported, and currently being addressed.

 

Rob... I like your formulae, however as I'm sure you're aware, it's missing the complicated bit.

 

There needs to be a logarithm applied where 'e' is the average number of games played by all players.

 

Take for example: An Alice in Flip Frenzyland takes place where the Queen ends up with a 500-500 ratio (no-one had their heads offed on this day - Thankfully so, for the Executioner had recently parked his rotund bottom on his third and last pair of glasses!). It is important to note that the Executioner was paid pro rata (and what a scholarly way to be paid!) to executions accomplished, and of late, his rotund bottom did not sit as firm on his stool as his rotund bottom of old... Back in the day when he received a ha’penny per hack, and could afford many fine and succulent dinners (although the Executioner can't recall the days of old, nor such succulent dinners, his bottom is bereft of why it can't stool the way it once did (according to Mrs The Executioner).

 

My my... What a long schlong of a paragraph. I hope you too sat on your bifocals!

 

For various immutable reasons (although one could presume there's a reason for the Hatter ducking out for 'Tea' breaks at a consistent rate (A caffeine collusion of some sorts one would presume, should one wish to be presumptuous)) (perhaps he procured the need to have directional words with the Tillerman, for the benefit of those who feel the need to digress), the Mad Hatter played in the same Frenzyland, and ended with a ratio of 10-10.

 

Jolly good show!

 

It's obvious that the Queen's ratio shows a consistent 50-50 over fifty fold more matches than the Mad Hatter's 50-50, and therefore should be considered as 'more accurate'.

 

Glicko uses the above example as its' foundation when 'calculating' IFPA ratings (but don't tell the King... He has far too many quandaries to consider in what needs to be considered as a quandary!).

 

Here's an example of where your formulae works unfairly, Rob.

 

Hey mates

 

Thanks again to everyone for attending and your patience with the machine malfunctions. You're all consummate professionals :)

 

Final placings below. We actually had a glitch as the software had never seen that many machines out of action so was awarding wins for games that were cancelled. Apologies. Chris and Oli I owe you a third place

 

1 Pat Nichols 16 3

2 Warren Beetham 15 4

3 Christopher Wade 15 7

3 Oliver Dickson 15 7

5 Matthew Hetherington 14 5

6 Zack Foster 13 7

7 Gino Thimios 12 5

8 Simon Baird 12 6

9 Shane Reed 12 7

9 Mike Pascale 12 7

11 Thibaut Allender 12 8

13 Paul Phillips 11 6

13 David Clarke 11 6

13 Emily Cosson 11 6

15 Michael Costalos 11 7

15 Tim Walle 11 7

17 Greg GEE 10 2

18 Ben Bronson 10 8

18 Anthony Fowler 10 8

22 Greg Jones 9 9

22 Mick Paul 9 9

22 Rob Singh 9 9

22 Steve Bruce 9 9

24 Mel Conyers 8 13

25 Simon Rhodes 8 14

26 Grant Quinn 7 8

27 Stella Read 7 10

28 Ben Wiedman 7 12

28 Michael Saunders 7 12

30 Mick Campbell 7 14

21 Michi Henning 6 12

33 Roland Kaegi 5 15

33 Jeremy Hackett 5 15

33 Bindi Paul 5 15

35 Leisha Martini 5 16

36 Kieren Quinn 4 12

36 Dan Olejniczak 4 12

38 Phil Beutel 4 13

39 Russell Fuller 3 17

 

The anomaly here is No. 17 GEE :unsure, who, using your formulae, would have come 2nd in this event, and unfairly so.

 

GEE wasn't out procuring cups of 'Tea' at opportune moments... He was procuring ZZZ's, and did not enter the comp until T minus GEE.

 

GEE's relative 15:3 would not be seen as stronger than Warren's 15:4 when scored by a logarithm, because all and sundry are aware that a Warren houses rabbit's, and any house not housing a rabbit can't be much of a home.

 

This mathematic conundrum is simple in it's absurdity.

 

 

Cheers,

 

G

Edited by GEE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, the 10% that I understand of your post makes sense ha ha.

 

Yep, a formula would also need to consider not only the total number of game played in the tournament, but also the number played by the individual.

 

Mathematics can take away all the concerns about luck and/or conceding games. The end result is that the most skilled player on the day should win and hopefully everybody has fun. If people can't exploit the system, then other players won't get frustrated.

 

 

Sent from my ALP-L29 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or we could just in the spirit of the game play all balls as pinball was intended, if you were paying $2/game would you just play 1 ball then plunge the rest?

 

This what we should be concentrating on. Play in the spirit of the game. Not about winning or maximising IFPA points but playing pinball for the enjoyment they are made for.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or we could just in the spirit of the game play all balls as pinball was intended, if you were paying $2/game would you just play 1 ball then plunge the rest?

 

The whole issue is that some are not playing in the spirit of the game hence the proposed changes. But yeah it would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is correct that this is about the flip thread of fair game play rather than machine selection.

Netherworld recently asked for one of the most popular machines..... How many people have offered crazy amounts of money for SWORDS OF FURY.... THANKS DICKY....

To be rotated out of the venue..............BUGGER...........Loved by many, suited to all forms of play and especially flip frenzy

A fun challenge, Rare anywhere, and short and fair play time....

You get what you get in flip....Thanks Michi.....Soooooo True

I am new and love the flip format and for an introduction to pinball comps it couldn't get any better.....

That's what I recommend for anyone to get a genuine FIRST BUZZ to remind them of their youth....

 

ENJOY & FLIP FOR FUN...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, the 10% that I understand of your post makes sense ha ha.

 

Seems to me that you understand 42% more than you let on!

 

This thread is in the 10% category of least viewed and cared about threads of all time (no offence to your good self, pinball, pinballers, or Flip Frenzy (seppuku)).

 

I had a couple of hours to spare, and on a whim, decided to amalgamate the threads' themes with the themes of two of the best ten selling English language published books' of all time (all three of which are nonsense), plus satirically mirror and interweave some Aussie pinballer characters in to the equation.

 

Or maybe I'm Machiavellian... Or perhaps not.

 

----------------

 

For the record, I find vast amounts of Human behaviours extremely difficult to process, and one of my coping mechanisms is taking the piss G-Style (which more often than not, does provide an embedded practical solution to what ails ya)...

 

Also for the record, my true feelings on vast amounts of stuff are akin to the sentiment and expressions' in this thread of the triptych: Fab, Ray 'n' Russell, who all love the pins just as much as You and I.

 

 

Cheers,

 

G

Edited by GEE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also rekon divide the number of players by 3 (or even more) to determine number of machines, this would result in a couple of things; Reduces TGP a bit more, and Increases social factor.... since there is more time spent in the queue. Players get some Time to pause and recover (or line up for their piss, take the piss, or take a piss Lol) while talking s#it! :D

 

:lol

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

eg. If players were divided by 3 at SA masters then there would be a cap of 64 rather than 54. 21 machines with 42 players leaving 22 in the queue, which means each player would be in the queue (on average) for about the duration of the average 2 player game, rather than closer to the duration of Half a 2 player game. Since there are at least 5 of us now out of the Frenzy in order to run it (with the new guidelines), this would mean nobody would really miss out if everyone is going "all in" over the weekend (assuming the caps were reached).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s my personal thought.

Number 1 if caught cheating first offence Warning.

Number 2 offence one month ban.

Number 3 offence life ban.

 

If you don’t like F/F don’t play in them.

People complain they don’t like F/F are some of the same people that complain that Flipswitch is to long.

 

If this was me running it and you complain you to change how the points are structured,you say only make it one third of normal points per game.

If you did this to me and I had the machines in the shop 10 machines three hours,simple way around that is add another 5 machines and extend the time from 3 hours to 4 hours that would make it worth approx same amount of points.

 

What is really annoying me about this is the following.

You complain about how wrong it is same people did this with our single leagues.

 

But you talk about how bad things are,this is why this sport will not grow because people don’t want to know how bad it is they want to know what’s good about it.

 

With a incident that happened during the F/F here’s some good points that came out of it.

 

One player struggling to get back to the line three players over took one play noticed what had happened and stopped and said he should be in front of us let him go all three players waited.

Other players offered to get a chair one got a stool so this person could rest between balls.

Two or three players offered to go and record this players score to keep them in the game. But due to rules the winner had to record them.

When struggling to get back to the line players watching game saw this players coming and looked and moved out of the way and got other players to move to give this player a clear walk to the line.

 

Rather than bag what happening this is what I want to hear about how players look after other players if they can. This is the sort of sportsmanship that I want to hear about because this what it is about.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Aussie Arcade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flip Frenzy Scoring/calculation idea

 

Here’s my personal thought.

Number 1 if caught cheating first offence Warning.

Number 2 offence one month ban.

Number 3 offence life ban.

 

If you don’t like F/F don’t play in them.

People complain they don’t like F/F are some of the same people that complain that Flipswitch is to long.

 

If this was me running it and you complain you to change how the points are structured,you say only make it one third of normal points per game.

If you did this to me and I had the machines in the shop 10 machines three hours,simple way around that is add another 5 machines and extend the time from 3 hours to 4 hours that would make it worth approx same amount of points.

 

What is really annoying me about this is the following.

You complain about how wrong it is same people did this with our single leagues.

 

But you talk about how bad things are,this is why this sport will not grow because people don’t want to know how bad it is they want to know what’s good about it.

 

With a incident that happened during the F/F here’s some good points that came out of it.

 

One player struggling to get back to the line three players over took one play noticed what had happened and stopped and said he should be in front of us let him go all three players waited.

Other players offered to get a chair one got a stool so this person could rest between balls.

Two or three players offered to go and record this players score to keep them in the game. But due to rules the winner had to record them.

When struggling to get back to the line players watching game saw this players coming and looked and moved out of the way and got other players to move to give this player a clear walk to the line.

 

Rather than bag what happening this is what I want to hear about how players look after other players if they can. This is the sort of sportsmanship that I want to hear about because this what it is about.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Aussie Arcade

 

I think you are missing the point (unless I am also). As Flip Frenzy was it didn’t seem fair that you could get beaten with a record of 20-0 by someone that had 21-5. Similar to the way in your single league if a player can’t afford to pump $50 into a game to advance their score they are at a disadvantage to someone that can.

Yes I agree that if you don’t like the format of Flip Frenzies and Flipswitch is too long don’t play them. I don’t play either for these reasons. You will find that is why mostly the same people only show to these events. The ones that didn’t like the format stayed away.

Advice is given on how these events can be made better. If the TD chooses to ignore this advice and would rather tell people “don’t play in them” I am really not sure how this is beneficial to the sport.

If you read all of the comments in the Masters, Houseball etc threads you will see that the negatives you think people are focusing on are insignificant compared to the praise and the good times people are having at these events.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by rusty_dagger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Flip Frenzy was it didn’t seem fair that you could get beaten with a record of 20-0 by someone that had 21-5.

Yes, that aspect of scoring is indeed weird. It's also what encourages collusion, because there is no penalty for a loss, except when there is a draw on the number of wins.

 

Pretty much all scoring systems have anomalies, though. For example, in a matchplay comp with rounds of qualifying and elimination finals, I can end up placing third without losing to the winner; I may even have beaten the winner during qualifying and, overall, may have won more games than the winner. In some sense, that's weird, too. In the end, the "winner" is simply the person who was most successful at playing according to the scoring rules with the least loss of points. Usually, that's related to skill, but is often also related to luck, such as which machines were drawn, what opponents were drawn during qualifying, whether there were house balls or a malfunction, and so on.

 

Similar to the way in your single league if a player can’t afford to pump $50 into a game to advance their score they are at a disadvantage to someone that can.

 

As a general observation, all formats are affected by time and money. It's like that with pretty much all sports. Someone with lots of time and money can afford to give themselves more chances than someone with less time and money. It's simply how it is. If I'm the best pinball player in the world, I'll never win a world pinball championship if I can't afford to go… Same with the ACS; it may be too expensive for some people to travel, or impossible to attend because they can't get time off work, or the wife is about to give birth, etc.

 

The relationship between WPPR points and skill is only a very loose one, anyway. When I look through the Australian rankings, there are plenty of people ranked below me whom I know for a fact to be better players than me. These people are ranked below me not because they have less skill, but because they don't play as many tournaments, for whatever reasons.

 

Is it "fair" that, in Queensland, we have about as many tournaments as the rest of the country put together? Is it "fair" that people who live in other states end up having to travel here for the bigger tournaments if they want to make it into the top Australian rankings? Should we reduce the number of tournaments in Queensland to make it "fairer"? Would reducing the number of Qld tournaments be fair to Australian players overall who, as a result, would end up lower in the world rankings?

 

Whatever we do, it'll never be "fair". That's impossible.

 

Michi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that aspect of scoring is indeed weird. It's also what encourages collusion, because there is no penalty for a loss, except when there is a draw on the number of wins.

 

Pretty much all scoring systems have anomalies, though. For example, in a matchplay comp with rounds of qualifying and elimination finals, I can end up placing third without losing to the winner; I may even have beaten the winner during qualifying and, overall, may have won more games than the winner. In some sense, that's weird, too. In the end, the "winner" is simply the person who was most successful at playing according to the scoring rules with the least loss of points. Usually, that's related to skill, but is often also related to luck, such as which machines were drawn, what opponents were drawn during qualifying, whether there were house balls or a malfunction, and so on.

 

 

 

As a general observation, all formats are affected by time and money. It's like that with pretty much all sports. Someone with lots of time and money can afford to give themselves more chances than someone with less time and money. It's simply how it is. If I'm the best pinball player in the world, I'll never win a world pinball championship if I can't afford to go… Same with the ACS; it may be too expensive for some people to travel, or impossible to attend because they can't get time off work, or the wife is about to give birth, etc.

 

The relationship between WPPR points and skill is only a very loose one, anyway. When I look through the Australian rankings, there are plenty of people ranked below me whom I know for a fact to be better players than me. These people are ranked below me not because they have less skill, but because they don't play as many tournaments, for whatever reasons.

 

Is it "fair" that, in Queensland, we have about as many tournaments as the rest of the country put together? Is it "fair" that people who live in other states end up having to travel here for the bigger tournaments if they want to make it into the top Australian rankings? Should we reduce the number of tournaments in Queensland to make it "fairer"? Would reducing the number of Qld tournaments be fair to Australian players overall who, as a result, would end up lower in the world rankings?

 

Whatever we do, it'll never be "fair". That's impossible.

 

Michi.

 

You seem to have covered off on everything except “it’s not fair when someone else has more skill than someone else in a comp”.

I was just trying to simply point out why I don’t play in these comps as I have been told not to if I don’t like them.

 

They changed the qualifying to ACS because people complained about others being able to effectively buy their way in to the finals. Flip Frenzy rules have now been changed because people didnt like the rules. It’s a pity others don’t want to change their format unless it maximises the amount of IFPA points that will be available to the winner.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have covered off on everything except “it’s not fair when someone else has more skill than someone else in a comp”.

 

Well, that's because if someone wins because he/she has more skill, that's exactly as it should be, IMO :)

 

I was just trying to simply point out why I don’t play in these comps as I have been told not to if I don’t like them.

 

Well, seeing that pinball is meant to be fun, it makes sense to not play in a comp you don't like. Most people would do the same, I expect.

 

They changed the qualifying to ACS because people complained about others being able to effectively buy their way in to the finals.

 

For the record, there was a perception that others could effectively buy their way into the finals. But that perception was not supported by the facts. See here for the details.

 

Flip Frenzy rules have now been changed because people didnt like the rules.

 

I can't agree with that. It seems to me that the rules were changed because they encouraged collusion to the point where collusion actually happened. I believe the rule change was made to remove the incentive for collusion, not because some people didn't like the rules.

 

It’s a pity others don’t want to change their format unless it maximises the amount of IFPA points that will be available to the winner.

 

I don't see a problem with that. Every TD is free to set up his/her comps any way they see fit. Comps that emphasise WPPRs are just as valid as comps that don't offer any WPPRs. People can choose to attend any or all of them according to their preferences. That's a good thing, in my book.

 

Today, we have far more choices for people to get together and play pinball (whether for WPPRs or not) than we had two years ago. These days, my problem isn't to find an event to attend, but to decide which of the many on offer I can find time for. That's awesome, as far as I am concerned, and good for pinball overall. It's a win for everybody!

 

Michi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's because if someone wins because he/she has more skill, that's exactly as it should be, IMO :)

 

 

 

Well, seeing that pinball is meant to be fun, it makes sense to not play in a comp you don't like. Most people would do the same, I expect.

 

 

 

For the record, there was a perception that others could effectively buy their way into the finals. But that perception was not supported by the facts. See here for the details.

 

 

 

I can't agree with that. It seems to me that the rules were changed because they encouraged collusion to the point where collusion actually happened. I believe the rule change was made to remove the incentive for collusion, not because some people didn't like the rules.

 

 

 

I don't see a problem with that. Every TD is free to set up his/her comps any way they see fit. Comps that emphasise WPPRs are just as valid as comps that don't offer any WPPRs. People can choose to attend any or all of them according to their preferences. That's a good thing, in my book.

 

Today, we have far more choices for people to get together and play pinball (whether for WPPRs or not) than we had two years ago. These days, my problem isn't to find an event to attend, but to decide which of the many on offer I can find time for. That's awesome, as far as I am concerned, and good for pinball overall. It's a win for everybody!

 

Michi.

 

I am getting dizzy so going to step off this roundabout.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...