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

All,

 

With concerns (particularly with IFPA) about the flip frenzy format and ability to 'throw' games and not 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).

 

Its been a while since i've gotten right into maths equations, but 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

 

 

1. The only reason i put a "+1" there was if someone had a perfect run, it would result in a division by 0 which doesn't work. Would be keen for someone with sharper maths skills to have a look and work out something that creates an even distribution.

 

2. I put a x 100 there, otherwise you end up with small decimals - could also be x 1000.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

What are the concerns about throwing games? Cant a player concede if they think they are too far behind and don't think they will be able to catch up? Is that what you mean about throwing games? I thought that was part of the idea of flip frenzy, play as many games as you can.

 

I always struggle with purposely ending a game when I am playing well. At Melbourne Flip Frenzy against Rob Singh we both had great games on Walking Dead and I ended up on the high score table.

 

So if we look at the Brisbane Master Flip Frenzy's: is this the equation you would see?

 

FLIP FRENZY SATURDAY (95 players)

1. Michael Costalos (18-6) - (18/7x100) = 257 - 3rd

2. Paul Jones (17-6) - (17/7x100) = 242 - 4th

3. Grant Stephens (17-7) - (17/8x100) = 212 - 6th

4. Luke Marburg (17-8) - (17/9x100) = 188 - 7th

5. Pat Nichols (16-5) - (16/6x100) = 266 - 1st

5. Richard Rhodes (16-5) - (16/6x100) = 266 1st

7. Peter Watt (16-6) - (16/7x100) = 228 - 5th

8. Thibaut Allender (16-8) - (16/9x100) = 177 - 8th

8. David Loewy (16-8) - (16/9x100) = 177 - 8th

This would then change the placings so that the people with a better win/loss ratio would move up. Would this cause a problem say if a player has 5 or 10 wins in a row and then mysteriously disappears for a while only to return right at the end with an unbeaten record? Just a hypothetical but I'm sure there are people out there who would do this. I really like this idea of not just awarding the person with the greatest number of wins, but takes into account the fewest losses as well. As you say Rob, there are probably those here with better maths skills than us who could find a fair equation to work things out. Total number of games played would probably need to be factored in to the equation somewhere...

 

FLIP FRENZY SUNDAY (84 players)

1. Paul Jones (19-5) - (19/6x100) = 316 - 1st

2. Mike Pascale (19-6) - (19/7x100) = 271 - 3rd

3. Pat Nichols (18-5) - (18/6x100) = 300 - 2nd

4. Richard Rhodes (18-7) - (18/8x100) = 225 - 4th

4. Chris Wade (18-7) - (18/8x100) = 225 - 4th

6. Connor Stowe (18-8) - (18/9x100) = 200 - 6th

7. Grant Stephens (18-9) - (18/10x100) = 180 - 7th

8. William Gill (18-10) - (18/11x100) = 163 - 8th

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the concerns about throwing games? Cant a player concede if they think they are too far behind and don't think they will be able to catch up? Is that what you mean about throwing games? I thought that was part of the idea of flip frenzy, play as many games as you can.

 

I always struggle with purposely ending a game when I am playing well. At Melbourne Flip Frenzy against Rob Singh we both had great games on Walking Dead and I ended up on the high score table.

 

You are free to concede a game any time you like. That's not against IFPA rules. You can do that in a Flip Frenzy, or any other tournament format.

 

The concern is that people can agree to play only one ball and let that determine the result. Because there is no penalty for losses, there is a huge advantage to having short games. But agreeing to play only one ball is collusion (as opposed to conceding a game if you think there is no chance of winning it in reasonable time). And collusion is against the rules because it gives the colluding players an unfair advantage (a shorter game than it would have been otherwise).

 

And, yes, it sucks when I'm having the ball 1 of my life on Addam's and let it drain with > 100 million on the score board, just so I get away from the game…

 

Michi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this cause a problem say if a player has 5 or 10 wins in a row and then mysteriously disappears for a while only to return right at the end with an unbeaten record? Just a hypothetical but I'm sure there are people out there who would do this.

 

Yes, that. You don't need to disappear, just concede all your games.

I actually had an amazing run for the first 2 hours in one of the frenzy with only 2 losses, but tanked the last. I could have conceded all my games and win it using this calculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the concerns about throwing games? Cant a player concede if they think they are too far behind and don't think they will be able to catch up? Is that what you mean about throwing games? I thought that was part of the idea of flip frenzy, play as many games as you can.

 

I always struggle with purposely ending a game when I am playing well. At Melbourne Flip Frenzy against Rob Singh we both had great games on Walking Dead and I ended up on the high score table.

 

So if we look at the Brisbane Master Flip Frenzy's: is this the equation you would see?

 

FLIP FRENZY SATURDAY (95 players)

1. Michael Costalos (18-6) - (18/7x100) = 257 - 3rd

2. Paul Jones (17-6) - (17/7x100) = 242 - 4th

3. Grant Stephens (17-7) - (17/8x100) = 212 - 6th

4. Luke Marburg (17-8) - (17/9x100) = 188 - 7th

5. Pat Nichols (16-5) - (16/6x100) = 266 - 1st

5. Richard Rhodes (16-5) - (16/6x100) = 266 1st

7. Peter Watt (16-6) - (16/7x100) = 228 - 5th

8. Thibaut Allender (16-8) - (16/9x100) = 177 - 8th

8. David Loewy (16-8) - (16/9x100) = 177 - 8th

This would then change the placings so that the people with a better win/loss ratio would move up. Would this cause a problem say if a player has 5 or 10 wins in a row and then mysteriously disappears for a while only to return right at the end with an unbeaten record? Just a hypothetical but I'm sure there are people out there who would do this. I really like this idea of not just awarding the person with the greatest number of wins, but takes into account the fewest losses as well. As you say Rob, there are probably those here with better maths skills than us who could find a fair equation to work things out. Total number of games played would probably need to be factored in to the equation somewhere...

 

FLIP FRENZY SUNDAY (84 players)

1. Paul Jones (19-5) - (19/6x100) = 316 - 1st

2. Mike Pascale (19-6) - (19/7x100) = 271 - 3rd

3. Pat Nichols (18-5) - (18/6x100) = 300 - 2nd

4. Richard Rhodes (18-7) - (18/8x100) = 225 - 4th

4. Chris Wade (18-7) - (18/8x100) = 225 - 4th

6. Connor Stowe (18-8) - (18/9x100) = 200 - 6th

7. Grant Stephens (18-9) - (18/10x100) = 180 - 7th

8. William Gill (18-10) - (18/11x100) = 163 - 8th

 

Pat - i think you missed my part of the equation that had the ratio divided by the number of games - which you noted should be included. That should then account if someone 'mysteriously dissappears!". I don't have time to run some quick scenarios to see how it works out at the moment though

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Yes, that. You don't need to disappear, just concede all your games.

I actually had an amazing run for the first 2 hours in one of the frenzy with only 2 losses, but tanked the last. I could have conceded all my games and win it using this calculation.

 

Not sure about that. Say you had 10 wins and 2 losses in first 2 hours, so that is (10/3)/120*100 = 1.6 ****i'm making up the 120 as total number of games****

 

Then, if you conceded (i'm assuming you mean deliberately drain and lose) the next 5 games, that would mean the calculation would be (10/8)/120*100 = 1.19

 

ie: you are worse off by conceding games, and i think the ratio of wins/losses divided by total number of games overcomes the ability to skew the result by deliberately losing, and does not punish someone who gets drawn a long playing game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are worse off by conceding games

 

 

Yeah sorry, my bad, I was not thinking straight. Indeed, you would have to disappear (which has happened, some players could not stay for the full length of the Frenzy), they are then removed from the queue or bumped back at the end of the queue if they don't show up on the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah sorry, my bad, I was not thinking straight. Indeed, you would have to disappear (which has happened, some players could not stay for the full length of the Frenzy), they are then removed from the queue or bumped back at the end of the queue if they don't show up on the game.
Yep, and that is easy to manage... Just state in the rules you get a loss if you are not available for you game at any time and next person in the queue gets your playing position

 

Sent from my ALP-L29 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing regarding the frenzies is that they seem to be worth too much. I'm saying this because the luck factor can be huge in a flip frenzy. I've gotten a place in a flip frenzy more than once because I was lucky: started with a game straight up instead of starting in the queue, getting mostly short-playing games, and getting mostly opponents who were weaker players than me. The luck of the draw can be more important than the skill of the player.

 

Relative to the achievement of placing in the top three, I got too many points for those frenzies, IMO. When you contrast a flip frenzy that is, say, worth 15 points with, say, Flipswitch, also worth 15 points, Flipswitch is much harder to win, takes longer, and is far more a reflection of skill than a flip frenzy (at least on average).

 

I think it would be reasonable to maybe halve the number of points that frenzies are worth at the moment, or even make them worth only 1/3rd of their current value. That way, the focus would be moved more towards what the format was intended for, namely, to play a lot of fun games in a fixed amount of time, and to make the comp attractive for people who are new to competitive pinball. As is, the frenzies are too much of a point harvesting fest for the better players.

 

Michi.

Edited by Michi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF was introduced to me as a fun/not too serious side tournament for non tournament players who don't do tournaments because they feel they're not good enough to compete or they don't like the 'serious' tournament vibe.

 

The emphasis was on fun.

 

You guys are now turning it into a serious tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing regarding the frenzies is that they seem to be worth too much. I'm saying this because the luck factor can be huge in a flip frenzy. I've gotten a place in a flip frenzy more than once because I was lucky: started with a game straight up instead of starting in the queue, getting mostly short-playing games, and getting mostly opponents who were weaker players than me. The luck of the draw can be more important than the skill of the player.

 

...As is, the frenzies are too much of a point harvesting fest for the better players.

Michi.

 

Sometimes it is better to be starting in the queue as you go in to your first game against a player who has already lost and if you win you will be staying on that machine. Possibly having 2 quick wins in a row.

 

You are saying that the luck of the draw can be more important than the skill of the player, but then go on to say that frenzies are a harvesting fest for better players. So which is it? Luck or skill? Couldn't you then say that all tournaments are just point harvesting fests for better players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF was introduced to me as a fun/not too serious side tournament for non tournament players who don't do tournaments because they feel they're not good enough to compete or they don't like the 'serious' tournament vibe.

 

The emphasis was on fun.

 

You guys are now turning it into a serious tournament.

 

As time goes on and more tournaments are held and more players are involved, the more serious it will become.

After the first FF I was in at the peacock, never again. Players jumping in the que, players pushing others players out of the que ect.

It wasn't the spirit I thought it would be.

I found it very daunting and no fun at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. I'm saying this because the luck factor can be huge in a flip frenzy.

 

Michi.

 

And that is exactly why i am interested in peoples thoughts for adjusting the formula to determine a winner. If a formula that rewards good performance (ie: more wins, less losses in terms of a ratio), and does not bias towards luck (generally considered drawing short games is good luck) by dividing the ratio by the number of games played in total, then this should take the luck factor out - thus justifying WPRR points.

 

Understand about people saying it turns it into a 'serious' tournament, but as Marty and Ryan were saying on H2H, rules are there to ensure the minority don't abuse the system. If the rules are clear and fair and don't bias luck or people jumping the queue, then it should still be fun.

 

If the formula worked, then the only 'luck' factor would be whichever opponent you draw - but this is still a luck factor in many matchplay and strikes tournaments if pairing is not used. Someone much smarter than me could probably work out a system like swiss pairing, so that people with similar win:loss ratios play each other.

 

I'm not saying my suggestion is the perfect formula, but i think it would help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As time goes on and more tournaments are held and more players are involved, the more serious it will become.

After the first FF I was in at the peacock, never again. Players jumping in the que, players pushing others players out of the que ect.

It wasn't the spirit I thought it would be.

I found it very daunting and no fun at all.

 

I'm with you, surprisingly had two major players collude against me at that same event , so collusion even comes from the highest calibre of players and there were witnesses too, it was so obvious to watch what transpired. Fortunately for them two I couldn't care less about tournaments and comps as I only ever attend for the social side& Flip Frenzy. Keep the fun in Flip Frenzy and not include it in the IFPA if tanking and collusion is such an issue. Or one ball games as suggested above, great solution @SteelBalls

Edited by hotty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me start by saying that I love the Flip Frenzy format and think its great for getting players into playing in comps.... as all players get to play a lot of games.

 

Every time you specify a set of rules there will be people out there looking to try exploit the rules.

 

Scoring systems should have a clear objective that it is trying to reward..... in my mind the Flip Frenzy format is trying to reward the player who can win games AND play quickly. Idea is that there is a trade off between being slow and methodical points accumulator and winning more games.

 

This is not going to suite all styles of players, just like Pump and Dump, Head to Head or Pin Golf favors different styles players.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with players conceding a game when it is obvious that the chance of winning is very low after PJ has put 200 million by ball 2 and you have 5 million.....

 

If the Flip Frenzy runs for at least 3 hours (longer the better) the element of luck is reduced but there is an element of luck in every format.

 

So what is the best scoring formula to try to capture the spirit of Flip Frenzy....

 

Standard Flip Frenzy = Rank on Most Wins then Least Losses

Win Ratio = Rank Games Won / Total Games Played (High to Low)

RyanC Rule = Rank on Points where each Win is +1 and Each Loss is -0.5 (High to Low)

@LAP Rule = Rank on Number Wins * Win Ratio (High to Low)

@robm Rule = Rank on ((Number or wins/number of losses + 1)/total number of games played) x 100 (High to Low)

 

 

I have simulated each of these for the FLIP FRENZY SATURDAY results in the original post from @robm plus added 7 stereotypical players who's results would be good to see how they end up under each of the scoring rules....

 

Mr Colluding Every Game 1 Baller ==> Wins & Plays many more games than most because agrees to plays every game as 1 ball game

Mr Colluding Some Games 1 Baller ==> Wins & Plays more games than average because agrees to plays some games as 1 ball game

Jane Above Average ==> Above average player who wins more than they loose but not going to get on the podium

Joe Average ==> Average player who wins the same number of games they loose

Jack in The Loo ==> Player who gets off to a flier and then hides in the loo to preserve their Win/Loss ratio

Mrs Pin ==> Beginner player who swears like a trooper, has a lot of fun but ends up winning few games.

LAP ==> Beginner player who loves Flip Frenzy but ends up loosing almost all games and has very short ball times.

 

 

These are the results of the 5 scoring methods....

 

Summary Table

FullTable.thumb.JPG.442545ad3024582be4fd3c5145e8d952.JPG

 

 

Full results for each scoring method....

Table1.thumb.JPG.90949bc306b29c0a7e3aad71975b817a.JPG

Table2.thumb.JPG.4c26a2b9833c7eb4871f781495efbebc.JPG

 

 

 

I think we could keep things as they are and use the standard "Most Wins then Least Losses" rule and rely on the honor system after explicitly stating that players agreeing to play less than three balls ahead of the game will be disqualified for cheating.

 

or

 

I use a RyanC (@Ryza) or @LAP simple calculation method which rewards not only the player for more wins but penalizes/discounts players for losses.

 

 

 

 

And yes I spent more time than I should have on this but hey I am a little obsessive....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing worse in a flip frenzy than drawing a machine set up way too easy, winning and because it is the other player’s second loss staying on to play another game. That can be one hour blown on 2 games and the end of your chance of winning the tournament.

 

I agree with Michi, the results are much more luck based than other formats. And it is prone to abuse. It would be a shame if IFPA nerfed it, tho, since FF are half the tournaments run in SA.

 

I vote for -0.5 pts or -0.25 for a loss. And tournament directors take very slow playing games out of flip frenzies, or adjust them so they match playing times of other games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about 1 point for a win and -1 point for a loss.

If you want to throw a game it just cancels out the next win anyway.

 

Play to always win.

 

And yes, stop using such long playing games.

 

Either way it stopped being fun for me some time ago. Getting drawn on a long playing game for 3 games in a row sucks.

Blows the tournament then and there.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts? @ifpapinball

 

I've been in contact with Luke and Dan about the Flip Frenzy format issues with respect to IFPA sanctioning, scoring, etc.

 

The collusion thing with respect to deciding to play a 1-ball game is pretty straight forward and leads to two paths:

1) Those players should be thrown out of the tournament

2) The TD doesn't throw these players out, which ultimately shows that this format can be decided in 1-ball games, which leads to the tournament being graded at 1/3rd TGP value

 

I do believe that the biggest issue with the format is that losses have no consequence with respect to the final standing. This only leads to trying to "win efficiently". It may be worth forfeiting a long playing game altogether at the expense of winning, but having that win take up too much time.

 

I've offered the suggestion of basing the final standings on the win/loss percentage of the players that have competed. With respect to players that want to go missing once they have a good record established, I would force players to remain in the queue and should they not be available when their match is called . . . it's a loss on their record.

 

We won't be doing anything to the value of these tournaments during the 2018 season while ACS qualifying is actively going on. Any changes we do make will be for the 2019 season and will be announced with some sort of WPPR v5.5 update.

 

While not having played in the format myself, it was just run in Chicago at one of our barcades and everyone had a shit ton of fun. I'm hopeful we can find a way to keep the format relevant for IFPA purposes because I do think it's a great format for people to play.

 

Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kick it out of IFPA, just make it a social comp. " It's not a real comp anyway" , bring back social pinball....

 

If you are going to quote me at least give me credit. Maybe I should get a Tshirt made up with that on it.

 

I was turned off flip frenzy comps at Masters last year when I had someone say I won’t beat you so I concede. I was like “WTF?”. How is that in the spirit of sport or competition or particularly in the spirit of pinball that we try and promote as a social game. A comp shouldn’t encourage people to lose or concede games. Yeah it may be within the rules but I am not talking about the rules.

How confused would a new player be when some concedes to them? They would be as confused as I was when it first happened to me.

 

As Ray has said these style of comps should be social only or have there IFPA value massively nurfed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that rule was applied at each Flip Frenzy I've played, then 2-6 players would have been thrown out at every comp!

 

The first time I was asked by an opponent to play a 1-ball game, I reluctantly agreed. I hadn't played the game before, so thought I would have "luck" on my side as the opponent had played it often. I lost, deservedly. Afterwards I realised that it didn't seem to be in the spirit of the game. The next time I was asked by him and any others, I refused.

 

At one tournament two players alongside me did this on the first ball and then switched the machine off and on, while the other player ran to the back of the queue!

 

Ultimately, the Flip Frenzy format is not as "social" as often described, it actually brings out the worst in players.

 

12/37 tourneys I played in 2017 were Flip Frenzies ... 2018 I'm Frenzy Frenzy free and loving every minute of it!!

 

All that aside, it is good to see everyone making positive suggestions in this thread and looking at ways to improve competitive pinball.

 

#retired

 

I find Flip Frenzy’s to be the least social of all comps. Beside the above points there is no time to actually stand around and talk shit as everyone is always moving. Talking shit is my favourite part of pinball.

As for it is a good format to introduce new players there is an issue at the moment with Netherworlds Flip Frenzy where the tickets sell out straight away (almost instantly) as all of the “competitive players” buy tickets as soon as they go on sale. I personally know someone that has an alarm set so he doesn’t miss out. A general punter can’t just walk in and play. Take the IFPA points away (or reduce them) and numbers will soon drop.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe that the biggest issue with the format is that losses have no consequence with respect to the final standing. This only leads to trying to "win efficiently". It may be worth forfeiting a long playing game altogether at the expense of winning, but having that win take up too much time.

 

I've offered the suggestion of basing the final standings on the win/loss percentage of the players that have competed.

 

 

I like the idea of using the Win/Loss percentage but the other thing about Flip Frenzy is it encourages / rewards players who accumulate points quickly so people get more games in.... That's why I like the idea of either using @Ryza 's idea of a -0.5 for a loss or my personal favorite multiplying your number of wins but the % of your games you won... This solves the issue of people disappearing after establishing a good Win/Loss Ratio and encourages players to play fast. See the table in my previous post.

 

With regards conceding I think you should have to play at least 2 balls before being allowed to concede.

 

Some time ago I put together a spreadsheet (we don't all have the luxury of using Jimmy's system) to help Norbet when he was running Flip Frenzies at Coogee Diggers and was thinking about ways to encourage newer players..... one thought which was never used was to increase the value of a win to 2 points for players who beats someone who was ranked >more than 5'000 or 10'000 places above them on the IFPA rankings..... it was thought it might might fall fowl of IFPA rules though and remained just an idea.

 

 

 

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
If that rule was applied at each Flip Frenzy I've played, then 2-6 players would have been thrown out at every comp!

 

The first time I was asked by an opponent to play a 1-ball game, I reluctantly agreed. I hadn't played the game before, so thought I would have "luck" on my side as the opponent had played it often. I lost, deservedly. Afterwards I realised that it didn't seem to be in the spirit of the game. The next time I was asked by him and any others, I refused.

 

At one tournament two players alongside me did this on the first ball and then switched the machine off and on, while the other player ran to the back of the queue!

 

Ultimately, the Flip Frenzy format is not as "social" as often described, it actually brings out the worst in players.

 

12/37 tourneys I played in 2017 were Flip Frenzies ... 2018 I'm Frenzy Frenzy free and loving every minute of it!!

 

All that aside, it is good to see everyone making positive suggestions in this thread and looking at ways to improve competitive pinball.

 

#retired

 

Players need to bring these sort of rule manipulations to the TD's attention Andrew. If the TD does not act then Luke and Dan are the IFPA country reps effectively policing the tournament scene in Australia, so they should be the next port of call. I have listened to a lot a arguments on how this is OK or not, but I keep coming back to the same conclusion.....in a tournament you should be trying to WIN, not throw games so you "win" enough to come out on top based on the numbers. If you want to implement a strategy then choose games that maximise your game rotation because they are quick playing, but play your best when you do play. If you are silly enough to choose a long playing game in a FF tournament then you only have yourself to blame if you don't get enough games in to win. FF strategy should be tied to game choice IMO, not throwing the game to artificially inflate the number of rounds played.

 

As Aussies we don't like to dob, but when there is a clear breech of the rules it needs to be addressed by the TDs. For this reason I don't blame players for not reporting issues, but you really should do so to aid in transparency and fairness across the competition.

 

"Wins" on paper in FF are effectively a statistic if manipulated this way. You know the saying, "there are lies. damned lies and statistics". Winners are the ones who win more properly contested games on their merits, person to person in fair and proper play. IMO it would be great to see the rules altered to accurately reflect this.

 

Rant ends.

 

Dave

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...