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

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Just thinking the 1 ball problem could be solved by making all games 1 ball! Thats a frenzy.

 

I considered this too. It definitely would put an end to any kind of collusion. One problem with this idea is that, according to IFPA rules, it would divide the value of the tournament by three. Because a game that is played for only one ball counts only as one-third of a game toward TGP.

 

There are also pragmatic issues with the one-ball idea. A flip frenzy is usually frenzied enough as is. What would it be like if we play only one ball per game, and quite a few games would finish in under 30 seconds?

 

Someone would have to try this out in a 20-30 player frenzy to get a feel for how the one-ball games would affect queue lengths, reporting, and just staying sane during the entire thing…

 

Michi.

Edited by Michi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Tim Sexton was running the All Stars Tournament, I think they said there was some rule about the finals had to be 3 ball games, not 1 ball because an IFPA tournament couldn't be decided by 1 ball games.

 

Am I misremembering or would that apply here or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Tim Sexton was running the All Stars Tournament, I think they said there was some rule about the finals had to be 3 ball games, not 1 ball because an IFPA tournament couldn't be decided by 1 ball games.

 

Am I misremembering or would that apply here or not?

 

Flip Frenzy doesn’t have finals

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct, so all the games can't be 1 ball games otherwise the tournament would be decided by 1 ball games?

 

Yes.

But then the TGP would be 1/3rd and tournament would then be worth what it should

 

1 ball games over 3 hrs you would give you 30 - 70 games so enough to even out any bad luck.

 

A 1 game 1 ball final. Definitely not.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This tournament was 1 ball games: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/106714666?collection=PLFOW3PQwhTs0A

 

"The rules were peculiar for this tournament because we were trying to get minimized WPPRs. Qualifying was all 1-ball games and the final games were all 1-ball head-to-head matches. To make it a valid tournament we have a 3-ball game to determine the winner."

 

Would that not apply to Flip Frenzy if they were all 1 ball games? or are you saying because there's so many games in a FF that wouldn't apply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

But then the TGP would be 1/3rd and tournament would then be worth what it should

 

1 ball games over 3 hrs you would give you 30 - 70 games so enough to even out any bad luck.

 

A 1 game 1 ball final. Definitely not.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Imagine the poor sucker at the queue desk trying to do That without any software!!... they would go into Meltdown and end up with a Massive queue... 70 games x 30 players (conservative) = 2100 matches to manage!, in 3 hours!! :lol

 

Who would ever put their hand up to manage that?? ... Not this little black duck!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Tim Sexton was running the All Stars Tournament, I think they said there was some rule about the finals had to be 3 ball games, not 1 ball because an IFPA tournament couldn't be decided by 1 ball games.

 

Am I misremembering or would that apply here or not?

 

You're remembering correctly. Under the rules that were in effect at the time (2016), any one-ball games were worth 0% TGP. If they hadn't played a 3-ball final, the whole tournament would've been worth 0 points.

 

This rule was changed at the start of last year. Now, any one-ball games (or formats that allow a player to win in one ball) count as 1/3rd of a game played towards TGP. Tournaments may consist entirely of one-ball games under the current rules, but they won't be worth many points; the winner would need to play 75 games to reach 100% TGP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if too many games are played during 3 hours for 1 ball games, make it 1 hour. Reckon that would be just as fun and would save time as well!

 

But the person managing the queue still handles incoming players at a rate of 3 fold so the same overload problem exists regardless, at least they'd only have to deal with meltdown for an hour I guess :lol ... just saying.

 

It isn't the number of games that is the issue with this 1 ball game theory, it is the Rate. Software would definitely be required, but there would still be two queues , incoming played games to be registered, and the regular queue. Takes away from players time at a machine.

 

We'd have to rename it "Queue Frenzy!" :lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there is always a queue so not sure how things would get worse? Provided there are not too many waiting there would not be anymore work to be done from a TD perspective. Players moving to and from games would increase.. just needs to be more organised from that perspective
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all the new rules are good and I agree with most comments EXCEPT:

 

I think all the comments about long playing machines are to be frank - pretty pathetic. I will make it clear that at any tournament that I am involved with as a TD, I will not adjust machines as a general rule. We are incredibly fortunate in Adelaide that Simon and Steve at Amusement Worx let us use the venue for tournaments. If I were to go in there before a tournament and start moving/adjusting outlane posts and settings on machines I think they could rightly tell me to f$#k off!

 

Before a Flip Frenzy we rank the machines from fastest to longest playing and put them in accordingly. If I am managing the queue I sometimes rotate games in and out during the tournament for variety and fun. We have always left out really long players like The Hobbitt where Tom and myself once had a game which went for well over an hour. If a solid state like Kiss is set to 5 balls, the match is 5 balls. When a player approached me at our last F Frenzy and asked if a machine could be adjusted from 5 to 3 balls I just ignored him.

 

If a player doesn't like this, don't come!

 

I went to the 2017 Brisbane Masters. In the Flip Frenzy I got drawn on a long playing Spiderman for about 5 matches. There was 90 minutes gone. Big deal. I still had fun. There was no way I would have been so obnoxious as to approach Lambo and ask for the machine to be adjusted.

 

Get over it and just play and have fun.

 

Paul, you have the run times set up well in the Flip Frenzies at Amusement Worx this year. And a machine need not be adjusted, it can just be taken out of rotation if it is playing too long. What is too long is up to the discretion of the TD.

 

What we are talking about here is fine tuning the flip frenzy into a format that works the world over for IFPA. Leaving one hour games in a flip frenzy makes it a luck fest and that is not something attractive to the IFPA (or to me). They want to award points to the best player on the night, not the luckiest player.

 

If the flip frenzy format invites abuse and produces chance results it will be thrown out as an IFPA format. I don’t want to see that happen because it is a fun format, it is great for beginners (they play more games than anyone else), it is very efficient (there is almost no down time on the machines, they are all being played flat out), it consequently produces the highest TGP of any format, and it is perfect for a weeknight, we can all go home at 10:30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there is always a queue so not sure how things would get worse? Provided there are not too many waiting there would not be anymore work to be done from a TD perspective. Players moving to and from games would increase.. just needs to be more organised from that perspective

 

60 players and 600 or so games in 3 hrs has the scorers at the limit. To triple that for one ball games would require some new efficiencies we haven’t been able to invent yet. Maybe this all singing software up in qld is up to the task?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like if you decrease the games from 3-1 balls and decrease the event time from 3-1 hours would result in the same amount of games played? Personally I think this would be better in terms of eliminating collusion along with only 1 hour achieving the same results than 3 hours. You would get to play with the same amount of people etc. The strategy changes when playing FF events so I can't see this being compromised if these events were 1 ball.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, you have the run times set up well in the Flip Frenzies at Amusement Worx this year. And a machine need not be adjusted, it can just be taken out of rotation if it is playing too long. What is too long is up to the discretion of the TD.

 

What we are talking about here is fine tuning the flip frenzy into a format that works the world over for IFPA. Leaving one hour games in a flip frenzy makes it a luck fest and that is not something attractive to the IFPA (or to me). They want to award points to the best player on the night, not the luckiest player.

 

If the flip frenzy format invites abuse and produces chance results it will be thrown out as an IFPA format. I don’t want to see that happen because it is a fun format, it is great for beginners (they play more games than anyone else), it is very efficient (there is almost no down time on the machines, they are all being played flat out), it consequently produces the highest TGP of any format, and it is perfect for a weeknight, we can all go home at 10:30.

 

As I understand it a player can opt out of an arena they are drawn but don't want to play for whatever reason, and return to the back of the queue with a loss, under the new (current) guidelines. SA Masters 2018 will be conforming with the recently outlined guideline changes for the Flip Frenzy.

 

Luke has these listed in post No.59

 

@capsule suggests in post No.48 (replying to my thought bubble) that opting to go to the back of the queue is also a part of the new guidelines. ?

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

That's what happens now with the new rules.

Before, I would have called that cheating as you could decide not to face a certain opponent, rather than a specific game, and go back to a very short queue, to avoid an almost certain loss.

 

With the old guidelines and not recording a loss for going to rear of queue I would agree this could be a way for a player to skew things although now coupled with the other changes, a player choosing to do this records a loss (-1) as a result of their choice. So not really getting an advantage as such from avoiding a Player.

 

The new guidelines seem fine to me. Good work!

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Like if you decrease the games from 3-1 balls and decrease the event time from 3-1 hours would result in the same amount of games played? Personally I think this would be better in terms of eliminating collusion along with only 1 hour achieving the same results than 3 hours. You would get to play with the same amount of people etc. The strategy changes when playing FF events so I can't see this being compromised if these events were 1 ball.

 

Whichever way you look at it one ball games triple the workload of the scorers whom are already at their limit, as Greg pointed out. On top of this time in front of games is reduced significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@capsule suggests in post No.48 (replying to my thought bubble) that opting to go to the back of the queue is also a part of the new guidelines. ?

 

No, I never said that, but if you don't go to the game you're being assigned to, you'll get a loss.

In essence, it is the same, but the rules don't incentive people to opt out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all the comments about long playing machines are to be frank - pretty pathetic.

 

Well, up front: it's only pinball. Not exactly a matter of life and death… :)

 

I do have some sympathy with people who complain about long-playing games in flip frenzies though. Basically, if I happen to be near the end of the queue when the frenzy starts, and then get Spiderman, Twilight Zone, Spiderman, and Twilight Zone, that's "game over" for me. No chance thereafter because those games just take too bloody long. This also is what encourages collusion: "Oh my God, we got Playboy. It'll take half an hour. Can we agree to play only one ball and call it a day?"

 

It was interesting to see how the banks at Pinburgh were constructed. Basically, they have a huge amount of historical data and have gotten very good at levelling the banks such that they tend to take roughly the same amount of time to complete. If there is a bank with a long-playing game (World Poker Tour or the like), they have short-playing games in the same bank to compensate. Also, with some long-playing games (Spiderman, Pirates of the Caribbean, Game of Thrones, and similar), they went and severely modified them.

 

The POTC at Pinburgh had no rubber on the inlane posts, and the outline posts had disappeared completely. It basically means that you have a 90% chance of draining as soon as the ball goes anywhere near the outlanes. Similarly, Spiderman had no rubber on anything near the outlanes, the centre post was gone, and the flippers had been replaced with lightning flippers. Game of Thrones got similar treatment. No rubber anywhere, outlane posts removed entirely, lightning flippers, and over-powered flipper coils, so the ball went flying off at 100 miles an hour whenever you flipped.

 

To be fair, all the modern games had "reasonable" tilts. Not that they were generous, but not hair-trigger either. Basically, you could make one strong move, take your double danger, and keep playing. In contrast, almost all of the EMs were unmodified, but had mostly hair-trigger tilts. Just looking at a machine sharply would tilt it. I suspect that is partly to protect the EMs, which are more likely to fail, but have to hold up for the full two days of qualifying (that's 30 4-player games), plus more games for the banks that end up in the finals. The SS machines were mostly unmodified, and had normal tilts. I really enjoyed playing those the most. No modifications to make them play shorter, so they played the way the designer intended (except for a few rare instances, such as Mousin' Around, which had no rubber on the centre post and really fat rubbers on either side of the centre ramp).

 

Personally, I think that the hair-trigger tilts on the EMs are annoying, but I can live with that. But I absolutely hate games where the outlanes are gaping maws with no posts or rubber anywhere. I think it turns the game into a luck fest. One bad feed from the pops or some such, and it's an insta-drain. That doesn't measure skill (which I think is the point of having a tournament).

 

Coming back to the frenzies, I think it is reasonable to modify long-playing games to play shorter. It removes the penalty of being unlucky when drawing such a game. On the other hand, there is so much luck involved in flip frenzies otherwise (such as whom you draw), that it may well not make much of a difference. As a competition format, flip frenzies suck. Because, of all the formats I've seen, the frenzies have the largest luck factor. It's a great format for fun; and, IMO, it's a really bad format to determine who is the best player.

 

Michi.

Edited by Michi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do the new guidelines alow @LCM... what if a player says "don't want to play that game" and walks away?

 

I'd treat that the same way as a player who can't be found. That is, the player gets credited with a loss (no one else gets the win) and returned to the back of the queue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd treat that the same way as a player who can't be found. That is, the player gets credited with a loss (no one else gets the win) and returned to the back of the queue.

 

So effectively then, players can Choose not to play a game with the only penalty being -1 point for a loss and go to rear of queue. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So effectively then, players can Choose not to play a game with the only penalty being -1 point for a loss and go to rear of queue. ?

 

Yeah, we'll allow that. I think the -1 point is enough of a disincentive.

 

I am curious to see how things play out under the new guidelines. They may need some tweaking down the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I think we should have a score card for this.

 

When a player chooses not to play, they hand over the empty score sheet they have with their name on it and I will mark it with the previous mach number and add an alphabetical sufix. So match 75 has their card and presents it, the next player choosing not to play has their card marked match 75A, and a big "L" drawn across it, and that gets handed to the scorer, recorded, and put with the other score sheets.

 

If a player has received their 3rd call out aloud I will start writing their name on a card, once the match number is written on it.... too late. Next contender is called up. Their score sheet has already gone to the scorer, and they are at the back of the queue. This will give a record of a loss without it having an actual match number.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

:confused: .... so that means the spreadsheet will have columns for recording player losses, that are not counted in as matches actually played?

 

Just a column maybe, with a number tallying losses that aren't actual matches (-1,-2,-3 etc...) ?

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...