What's new
Pinball info

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

UKCS and League Finals 18, 19 Feb near Huddersfield

robotgreg

robotgreg

Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
1,480
Location
Swanage, Dorset
Alias
Greg
Hi

I'm very pleased to announce that David Dutton has very kindly offered to host the finals of the UKCS and UK Pinball League. These will be held on the weekend of 18, 19 Feb at David's house which is situated between Huddersfield and Rochdale.

This is a change from the original plan to host this event at the Arcade Club in Bury but keeps the event in the north which was our main objective having held the UKCS finals in the Midlands and South in previous years.

David has a fantastic selection of games, ideal for the two national finals and we're very grateful to him for offering to host the finals.

Without a main UK show this year, we decided to hold the UKCS and league finals over the same weekend, with the hope of making it more worthwhile for attendees than just one comp but what it does mean is that there will be no time this year to run a separate comp like the UKCS Hangover we have run in previous years. The UKCS finals will be on the Saturday and UK League Finals on the Sunday.

I'll be in contact with the qualifiers for the league finals in due course to confirm attendance and provide more info, and of course UKCS finalists which we won't know until the end of the year.

Format of UKCS finals will be same as in previous years; format for the league finals will be different from the past as we need to include head to head play to qualify for WPPR points. There will be still be A and B divisions finals which will both run on the same format of 4 groups of 4 playing 4 players games (ie 16 players in each division) with top 2 advancing to next round and then repeat including the final unless we don't have enough players in which case there will be some adjustment to this format.

David advises that there is not much accommodation in the immediate vicinity. I've done a quick search and found two Travellodges within less than 10 miles - Huddersfield £74 for a double room (no twins) or Oldham Chadderton £68 for a twin (so have booked the latter).

Cheers
Greg
 
This was only my second season in the Midlands League, so please caveat my observations accordingly.

  • Thanks to Greg, Wayne and the others for organising all this stuff. It takes real time;
  • Thanks to David Dutton for allowing the hordes into his place too for the finals;
  • Thanks to the other mad folk who allow the hordes into their home

I think the time gap for the UK league final is just too long. The last Midlands meeting was in July 2016. I know that this year there have been challenges with the UKPP cancellation, the UK open being moved to Special When Lit etc. But still, a 7 month gap really detaches the finals from the league itself. And there are a number of tournaments between July and February anyway, so there is demand to play during this time.

I may be wrong here, and I apologise if that is the case; but in the Midlands area the league table has indicated
  • 5 A Final slots
  • 3 B Final slots
http://ukpinballleague.co.uk/leaguetable-m.php

I must declare an interest here as I finished in the top 8. It now appears that post the league finishing some exercise has been undertaken involving a review of players' WPPR ranking points and the perceived strength of each region to determine how many from each region actually do qualify for the finals. For the Midlands there are actually
  • 2 A Final slots
  • 2 A Final playoff slots
  • 2 B Final slots
Looking across the whole UK league, folk who looked at the league tables were presumably expecting 23 A Final slots and 18 B Final slots. What they have got is
  • 12 A Final slots, enlarged to 16 after the playoffs
  • 11 B Final slots, enlarged to 16 after the playoffs
Might I suggest that all this gets thrashed out and communicated before the season starts next year.
 
David

I agree that the league placings might have given a false impression but they were always only provisional and dependent upon the size and capacity of the finals location although this was probably not clear. I'm sorry if you or anyone else is disappointed to have not made A or B based on the league tables, although I would say that there is still chance of places if any qualifiers drop out. Of the 41 slots you refer to, we have 32 available and I wouldn't be surprised if most if not all of the 41 get offered a place in either A or B due to those players who can't make it.

The change to the format of the finals was required in order to qualify for WPPR following the change in rule to include a reasonable element of head to head play which we haven't done before in the league.

As you can appreciate, with the event being held at someone's house, there's only limited space so we couldn't increase the numbers any more and the 32 ie 2 lots of 16 for A and B works with the new format.

We've tried to be as fair as possible with the allocation of places and with 6 regions for the first time this year, that meant less places per region. We needed some basis to determine the qualifiers per region and number of players and relative strengths seemed the most logical.

As regards timing, the only reason we've run the season to June/July in the past is so that we can hold the finals at the main show in August. With there being no show this year and doubt over the future, it makes sense to run the season in future on a calendar year. Therefore, there's no rush to fit 5-6 meets in 6-7 months from the start of the year.

The other reason was to try to make the event worth traveling to for most players. Finding a venue which is in the right location and affordable, without the trouble and cost of transporting pins to it, is not easy so it made sense to group the league finals with another event. Seeing as a fair number of the league finalists would also be UKCS qualifiers, to tie the two together over one weekend seemed the most logical answer. If we'd grouped the league finals with another UKCS event during the year, you then have the issue of trying to fit the two events within one day which I can't see would have been possible or to run a weekend event which may not have worked for some events.

Hope this goes some way to explaining the reasoning behind these changes.

Regards
Greg
 
@DRD, been thinking about this overnight and have a few more thoughts to add.

Firstly, it's to some extent a matter of interpretation as the vast majority of A qualifiers are still in A albeit there is a first round to get down to 16 for the format to work. Any losers from this first round would then go into B division, using the Champions League analogy of the 3rd places teams in the initial group stage going into the Europa League.

The A/B qualifiers on the website are only ever as a guide as they always need tweaking based on numbers attending during the season which you never know until the end. This is to try to make it as fair as possible between regions based on number of players and certainly the website for example is currently showing too many qualifiers for Irish and too few for Scottish based on player numbers.

Furthermore, with the event being held in someone's house we needed to limit numbers and 41 was too many and didn't want to have any play offs for B division where people would have traveled for only 1 game.

Having said all this, I will wait until we have numbers confirmed of who wants to attend but I do think based on previous experience that there will be space for all who can/do want to attend of those 41 who qualified as per the website. For A division we'll then look at the format. Still need to get to 16 which may sort itself out with drop outs and if not, will review the format of the first round. Necessarily there will need to be some byes but we may change the 12 byes/ 9 play off split to include more players in the first round in order to whittle down to top 16.

Regards
Greg
 
I do not want to pick a fight with anyone, especially not a good guy like Greg. There are lots of worried folk given events in the USA, so a bit of nonsense about pinball irrelevance is probably no bad thing today.

IMHO any sporting event or league should establish rules at the start of a season, communicate them and stick to them; save something truly exceptional happening. And I am sorry, but I do not think attempting to tailor things mid season to maximise points in light of exogenous rule changes represents something exceptional.

As soon as things get changed part way through a season some folk may well question the point of it and then just walk away. At the margin of every change will be some guy who will feel ripped off having spent around 5x two hours plus of travelling and 5x 4h plus of participation during many months of the season.

I thought at the start of the season that there were A and B qualifiers, as indicated by the table. I did not know that there were 4 types of qualifiers ..
  • Real A
  • A playoff, could become B
  • Real B
  • Waitlist B, but might get in if some folk drop out
I was also expecting a league format final like it was in 2015, not some knock out scenario.

There are lots of formats out there in the ukcs that involve knock-outs. These can can be tailored and communicated in advance to maximise points. A downside of these formats is that they are less welcoming to noobs as they could be in for a very short day of pinball. I went to one of these this year where some guys had travelled for hours to be knocked out after 2 competitve games.

But surely the league can be distinct and it allows all folk to turn up and be guaranteed a good day of pinball. Better players can play machines with fellow better players if the choose to. Regardless of their skill level, the attendees know that they will get 2h practice and around 8 competitive games in and then see how they did by looking at the league table afterwards. Some folk just turn up for the social side as much as anything. So the league has the potential to be a good entry point for noobs, as it was for this one.

Various formats for the league finals would work, but again they must surely be communicated in advance so folk know what the rules of the game are. Especially given how much time was invested by all concerned in qualifying for the finals.

If for example the uk league stuck to the league format for the finals, all A and B folk could participate in line with expectations and league standings built up throughout the year. Any inevitable fluctuations in numbers for the finals could be accommodated without changing formats, or putting folk in knock-out scenarios. And in line with the league format, all participants would get a good day of pinball.
 
Last edited:
Personally I'm not in favour of the league finals being held in a knockout format just to maximise WPPR points. At the end of the day, the majority of people play league for FUN, not for WPPR points. I bet an awful lot of league players don't even know what WPPR points are. Fun is also being able to attend an event and be guaranteed the same number of games as everyone else there and not just drive whatever distance necessary to end up being eliminated after a small handful of games. Sure keep A & B division seperate but make sure that LEAGUE players get enough game time to make their travel worthwhile.

UKCS is of course another matter entirely, that much more intended towards WPPR points and the format of finals for this is fine as most of the qualifying rounds are knockout comps too.

My 2 cents anyway
 
I understand why the format has been changed by Greg, but feel that too much of the league format has been removed.

Personally - I'd have preferred the finals to run something along the lines of 7/8 games played as standard league format, giving a ranking from 1-16.
Then, to incorporate the head to head play, players ranked 1-4 play a 4-player game, as do players 5-8, 9-12 & 13-16. The final positioning is based on the score of that game. (it would also comply if players 1&2, 3&4, etc. played a simple heads up game) That way if you finished 1st based on your league position you could only drop a maximum of 3 places.
It could be extended to more than a single game of head to head play, using 4,2,1,0 pts for each game, if desired. (this is how the Monday Night Tilt League works and gains MAX WPPR points from 5 league nights consisting of 5 games, followed by a final with 4 different divisions, each playing 4 games)
This format also guarantees EVERY player the same number of games regardless of how they perform on the day - no more 6hr trips and an overnight stay to only compete in half of the games. Which must surely be one of the reasons people don't attend the final despite qualifying.

The way it is going to work, means that any of the people who qualified in 1st place in their region could end up finishing 16th on the day, meaning that they're not getting rewarded for CONSISTENTLY good play, which is the main advantage of a league system. The competition is definitely moving away from a league format.

Currently there is no reward for actually attending each league meet, or even finishing 1st, now that submissions aren't being made to IFPA after every meeting, I don't think that anything has been submitted for any of the play over 2016, and won't be now until Feb 2017 - over 12 months after games have been played. Hardly a current evaluation of players ranking. You just need to do enough to qualify for the 'final', which is in fact a completely separate competition with the only advantage of finishing higher during the season, a higher seeding - which may or may not turn out to be beneficial.

I personally am in favour of returning to results being submitted after every league meeting. A single head to head game between the top 2 players on the day to decide 1st and 2nd will negate any concerns about not being eligible for WPPR points and would be easy to implement.
 
Thanks for all your comments and ideas. Not averse to rejigging the format for the finals and we still have time but of course everyone will have different ideas on how it should work so not going to please everyone!

To respond to some of the views:

David (@DRD ), admittedly the change of format was not communicated at the beginning but it was mid season in the thread below after discussion with regional co-ordinators before publicising so should not be a total surprise now.

http://www.pinballinfo.com/community/threads/uk-league-wppr-points-and-finals.33158/

The main drive behind the change was to ensure that the league qualifies for WPPR points which was certainly a consideration for some players, that their efforts during the year were rewarded with WPPR points and a head to head format in the finals is the only way to achieve this. So I felt we had to change the format of the finals to qualify and I don't recall any concerns raised back in April.

My understanding is that the head to head part needs to form a substantial part of the competition so I will check with Martin how much but I'm not sure if we could do a league style qualification and then some knockout to be still be eligible for WPPR as suggested. If this is possible then I will certainly consider it.

There will be other machines to play on the day and some practice, time permitting but we have only in the past used 5 machines for the league finals so not much more than the minimum 3 games I'd propose under this format. And in fact, this minimum would only apply to the losers of the first group stage in A (if already qualified directly as a high regional qualifier) or B since the losers in A qualifiers would then get to play the group stages in B. By introducing this new format, aside from the WPPR points issue, most players would get to play more than the 5 games under the original league style format for the league finals.

Ian (@windoesnot ), I agree totally that WPPR points is not a drive for a lot of the players and totally behind the ethos that the league is an opportunity to meet up, socialise, have fun and play some pinball rather than just seek WPPR. However, WPPR points do matter more to some of the higher ranked players who form a larger proportion of the qualifiers than the average league player and hence the need for the finals to qualify for WPPR. This is also one of the reasons why we didn't try to change the regional league format just to satisfy the WPPR criteria (also see my other points a bit further on).

You've also got to bear in mind that a higher proportion of the finalists are more interested in the actual competition than the average player and the finals are for those more competitive players than the casual ones who can still enjoy the fun and social side of the regional league meets. So I'm not proposing to change the format of the regional leagues and any change in the format of the finals won't affect the regular casual players or detract from the social or fun side.

I agree it's not great traveling a long way to only play a few games but there are several other comps where this happens, most notably the UK Cup and also the potential to only play one game in the UKCS. Other UKCS events, you may only play 2 games eg World Cup Revisited. So with a number of comps, there may be only a few games. However, as I say I'll find out where we stand with WPPR for a league style format before any knockout.

Wayne (@Wayne J ), as per above, will consider how much league style format is OK for WPPR. I do think though we wouldn't get away with your suggestion as that level of head to head is not enough of the overall competition.

With your example, surely the same (ie finishing 16th) could happen to the top regional qualifiers under a league style format as all players start equal.

Re WPPR submissions after each meet, we did consider this but given the size of the player base and number of machines played at each individual meet, any WPPR points would just not be worth having. This is before any consideration of having to have a play off on the day which would mean waiting until everyone has finished their games which just doesn't work as lots of people need to get away before all others have finished their games. Also not sure a single head to head game is enough.

The reward for attending each meet and a high finish is the trophy and the satisfaction. Depending on where the format for the finals ends up, there may or may not be some benefit to a higher finish within A or B division.

Overall I've tried to base the new format on the Champions League as I've already mentioned where there is the national league with "league play" and then the European Champions League with "group play". On similar lines to how UEFA seed, I was trying to use the player base within each region and the ranking of those players to determine the qualifiers for A and B just like each country gets a certain number of teams and some teams have to go into a qualifying round to reach the group stages. Hope this explains some of the logic even if you don't agree with the format.

So in conclusion, I will consider changing to more of a league style format if acceptable for WPPR after checking with Martin BUT we will need to have some head to head play and my belief is this head to head play will need to be a substantial proportion of the finals format given all the regional leagues which act as the qualifiers do not incorporate any head to head play.

Cheers
Greg
 
Greg, you missed my point partly. Yes there are other comps where you can turn up and play a very small number of games and be knocked out (as I know all too well), however these are UKCS comps, not LEAGUE based comps / events. There should be a distinct difference between the two.

It's not exactly good encouragement for the Irish league players for example to travel such a distance to then potentially get knocked out in the first round and be out after a small handful of games.

And at the end of the day, are WPPR points that important to the elite players that having a single finals comp not count make that much of a difference to their overall standings? Yes the way points are given were changed to make knockout comps more valuable but I think it goes against why most league players participate. And those who make the finals are of course the better players but does it encourage newer players who may qualify for finals for them to be put into a completely new format that usual league events operate by?

Again, just my 2 cents
 
If it's top 16 then why not play 5 machines in a new group of 4 on each machine? have a 9 - 7 -5 - 3 (or whatever) total up after all 5 games have been played?

A players stay in their group of 16, B players stay in their group of 16.
 
robotgreg said:
after discussion with regional co-ordinators
Click to expand...
After discussion with SOME regional co-ordinators

robotgreg said:
My understanding is that the head to head part needs to form a substantial part of the competition so I will check with Martin how much but I'm not sure if we could do a league style qualification and then some knockout to be still be eligible for WPPR as suggested. If this is possible then I will certainly consider it.
Click to expand...
robotgreg said:
Wayne (@Wayne J ), as per above, will consider how much league style format is OK for WPPR. I do think though we wouldn't get away with your suggestion as that level of head to head is not enough of the overall competition.
Click to expand...
I've had a message from Josh or Zach (I get mixed up between the 2 - the one who goes by "pinwiz") saying that just a single head to head would satisfy the requirements, when I questioned him directly as to why leagues were now not valid for WPPR. Whether that is still valid I don't know.

robotgreg said:
Re WPPR submissions after each meet, we did consider this but given the size of the player base and number of machines played at each individual meet, any WPPR points would just not be worth having. This is before any consideration of having to have a play off on the day which would mean waiting until everyone has finished their games which just doesn't work as lots of people need to get away before all others have finished their games. Also not sure a single head to head game is enough.
Click to expand...
It's only "not worthwhile" to those people who attend LOTS of competitions (or place highly in the comps they do enter) and so, if they won it wouldn't appear in their top 20. For those people who attend very few, or only league meetings it would be worthwhile as they would have the potential for 6 submissions per year instead of just 1. It would also mean that if someone attended just 5 meets they would be adding to the overall value of the tournament after just 1 season, as opposed to 5 years as is now. That is why I run a single high score comp at Tilt. Winning is worth less than a point currently as the majority of those who enter only attend Tilt or comps in the Midlands. However, by the end of the season ALL of those players will have qualified to add value to ANY comp, thus increasing the points for EVERYONE in the country when they attend any comp (such as Shine)
It's not just about the higher ranked players being satisfied - I'm trying to introduce more people to competitive pinball, but telling them that it's going to take so long for them to actually be recognised as worthy is a little disheartening to them.
Again with regard to a final head to head, the chances are that the top 2 will be incentivised to stay to the end. The other alternative is that their ball is plunged and they forfeit (it could even happen that both players plunge ;-) ). Technically they still took part in the head to head. Exactly the same as at PAPA events if someone isn't there for their head to head. e.g. leaves early to catch a plane. There was a big furore about exactly that happening with Lyman last year.

robotgreg said:
Other UKCS events, you may only play 2 games eg World Cup Revisited
Click to expand...
Having listened to the feedback from a number of people following this year's event. The format will be tweaked (home and away match) guaranteeing 6 games even if you lose them all. The only reason some people only had 2 games was due to low turnout - showing the current state of competitive pinball in the UK. Too much emphasis on ensuring comps are "maxed out for points" - meaning less people get to play more competitive games, while the same faces reach the finals playing more games.
The beauty of the UK Cup is that anyone can beat anyone in a single game (hence no one person has won it twice in its' history) whereas a lot of the more convoluted formats almost guarantee that the better players ALWAYS reach the latter stages, and the same people get knocked out every time.
If I expected to get knocked out in the early stages I certainly wouldn't travel anywhere near the distances I do, or stay overnight. How can anyone expect others to do the same?

robotgreg said:
The reward for attending each meet and a high finish is the trophy and the satisfaction
Click to expand...
If it is purely about "the satisfaction" then we don't need to worry about satisfying IFPA regarding head to head for the finals. ;-)
 
Ian, OK I think I see now a bit better that you consider the league and other UKCS comps totally differently which is fair enough.

All I would say is if we didn't change the format and kept it in line with previous years (excluding any WPPR issues), then you'd only get to play 5 machines and under the proposal you play 3 machines minimum with most playing quite a few more. That was the reason to try to tie in the finals with the UKCS so at least making it more worthwhile for some to attend. I know not all players will qualify for both comps but that was the beauty of being able to hold the league finals as part of the national show in that it didn't matter if you only played a few games because you had the rest of the show to enjoy. And the reason why we didn't suggest holding the league finals as a stand alone comp.

Agree that the knockout format might not be as appealing to the newer players who have qualified and the desire to keep the league format but when the change in WPPR points was announced and the impact on league style play was originally discussed, there was a strong view that we should try to keep WPPR points for the league and not abandon them altogether.

The main problem I see is that we can't do just league style play and still get WPPR points, you either do one or the other. Hopefully, we may be able to do league style play with then knockout to keep WPPR and hopefully an acceptable compromise?:)

Peter, sounds a good idea although initial concern would be how to do the groupings for each machine assuming you're suggesting different ones which would be fairer, let me think about that. With 5 games and 16 players you would get to play against each player once which would be fair and could work. Still not the league style that's being asked for.

Cheers
Greg
 
Wayne J said:
After discussion with SOME regional co-ordinators

Agreed but wasn't intentional!:)

I've had a message from Josh or Zach (I get mixed up between the 2 - the one who goes by "pinwiz") saying that just a single head to head would satisfy the requirements, when I questioned him directly as to why leagues were now not valid for WPPR. Whether that is still valid I don't know.

useful to know, will wait to hear from Martin.

It's only "not worthwhile" to those people who attend LOTS of competitions (or place highly in the comps they do enter) and so, if they won it wouldn't appear in their top 20. For those people who attend very few, or only league meetings it would be worthwhile as they would have the potential for 6 submissions per year instead of just 1. It would also mean that if someone attended just 5 meets they would be adding to the overall value of the tournament after just 1 season, as opposed to 5 years as is now. That is why I run a single high score comp at Tilt. Winning is worth less than a point currently as the majority of those who enter only attend Tilt or comps in the Midlands. However, by the end of the season ALL of those players will have qualified to add value to ANY comp, thus increasing the points for EVERYONE in the country when they attend any comp (such as Shine)
It's not just about the higher ranked players being satisfied - I'm trying to introduce more people to competitive pinball, but telling them that it's going to take so long for them to actually be recognised as worthy is a little disheartening to them.
Again with regard to a final head to head, the chances are that the top 2 will be incentivised to stay to the end. The other alternative is that their ball is plunged and they forfeit (it could even happen that both players plunge ;-) ). Technically they still took part in the head to head. Exactly the same as at PAPA events if someone isn't there for their head to head. e.g. leaves early to catch a plane. There was a big furore about exactly that happening with Lyman last year.

That's unfortunate with the way WPPR works now but fully agree we need to encourage the newer players. Although, I may be wrong, I would have thought the enjoyment in the social side and the meet itself and the competing outweighs the WPPR points for these players until maybe they've risen up the ranks?

True, but a bit farcical and if people want to get away but feel obliged to stay for the play off as otherwise their afternoon's work will be undone will deter some players. Others may fell obliged to stay as they don't know if they're in the top 2 until the results have been finalised so wait around and then go without playing another game. So IMHO, not practical.

Having listened to the feedback from a number of people following this year's event. The format will be tweaked (home and away match) guaranteeing 6 games even if you lose them all. The only reason some people only had 2 games was due to low turnout - showing the current state of competitive pinball in the UK. Too much emphasis on ensuring comps are "maxed out for points" - meaning less people get to play more competitive games, while the same faces reach the finals playing more games.
The beauty of the UK Cup is that anyone can beat anyone in a single game (hence no one person has won it twice in its' history) whereas a lot of the more convoluted formats almost guarantee that the better players ALWAYS reach the latter stages, and the same people get knocked out every time.
If I expected to get knocked out in the early stages I certainly wouldn't travel anywhere near the distances I do, or stay overnight. How can anyone expect others to do the same?

Wasn't criticising your comp, just using it as an example. I didn't think the format was dependent upon the lower turnout as the format was the same as the year before and totally get why you did it that way and not against it at all.

Agree the format of comps has suffered just to satisfy WPPR and may be resulted in less popularity in the UKCS events this year than in the past?

Again agree that's the beauty of the UK Cup in that you get more upsets and why I was in favour of keeping the original format when the change to more games was suggested just to satisfy WPPR.

People still do go where there is the risk of getting knocked out early but again proposed change of Champion's league format (before any possibility of combining league style and knockout play) would mean minimum of 3 games and more games for most instead of only 5 under previous format

If it is purely about "the satisfaction" then we don't need to worry about satisfying IFPA regarding head to head for the finals. ;-)
Click to expand...

:)
Multiquote seems to have gone odd, so have highlighted my replies in bold.
 
Ok, heres how I would run it personally:

16 people in A & B

Everyone plays 'x' number of qualifying games for a seeding overall using the traditional league points system. Then do 4 groups of 4 over 'x' number of games with scoring. Seeding groups would be (for example):

1 - 16 - 8 - 9
2 - 15 - 7 - 10
3 - 14 - 6 - 11
4 - 13 - 5 - 12

Top 2 go though so you have a quarter, semi and final round played over 'x' number of games.

Therefore the most anyone would miss is 2 rounds and would get at least all the qualifying games plus 1 knockout round.

This way you get a league format initially of everyone plays all the machines then you get your knockout afterwards for those precious WPPR points.
 
Cool, that sounds good and would be pretty much what I'd have in mind after the feedback today, assuming this combination qualifies for WPPR which it should do. Only other thing will have to consider is to ensure it doesn't go on too long and David is OK as host.
 
windoesnot said:
Ok, heres how I would run it personally:

16 people in A & B

Everyone plays 'x' number of qualifying games for a seeding overall using the traditional league points system. Then do 4 groups of 4 over 'x' number of games with scoring. Seeding groups would be (for example):

1 - 16 - 8 - 9
2 - 15 - 7 - 10
3 - 14 - 6 - 11
4 - 13 - 5 - 12

Top 2 go though so you have a quarter, semi and final round played over 'x' number of games.

Therefore the most anyone would miss is 2 rounds and would get at least all the qualifying games plus 1 knockout round.

This way you get a league format initially of everyone plays all the machines then you get your knockout afterwards for those precious WPPR points.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a lot of games to fit in along with the other events happening at the same time/weekend...
 
robotgreg said:
Yes I was including 4 play when I referred to head to head☺
Still doesn't satisfy the demand for league style play as part of the finals though
Click to expand...

I would have said the demand for league style play went out of the window when the method for scoring WPPR was altered... :p
 
The problem I have with Ian's format is that the league portion is only being used for seeding. There's no guarantee that finishing 1st is going to equate to a higher overall finish.

A further option, other than the format I suggested earlier, would be after the league format, play a ladder style system similar to the UKCS finals. That would reward the higher finishers in the league. The main drawback being the length of time that would take.
 
Thinking about the 2017 league

I think that there are around 10 UKCS events, which presumably all generate the points

Do we need to tortuously manipulate the league finals to increase the number of UK points events from 10 to 11 ? Drag the event out with some lengthy knockout at the end, so many will have left by the time the winner is identified ?

I think that the current finals arrangements have a number of flaws. I know that events like the loss of the ukpp have led to this, but 2017 could be planned in such a way to avoid problems ....
  • In combining three finals events, you lose the feeling of them being finals. You do not host three football, darts ... finals on one day
  • Three simultaneous events means masses of players making it more challenging to find a venue with enough capacity
  • Spreading over two days is a double edged sword. Working folk may want to/ be under pressure to spend one weekend day with family
  • Trying to manipulate the league A and B into groups of 16 means making arbitrary decisions about who gets stuck in playoffs etc. What happens on the day if there is a no show ? What if too many turn up ? If fewer than 16, some lucky folk get byes etc etc . All this takes away the central theme of league play, same number of games

My suggestions for the 2017 league would be to keep it simple and truthful to the league format
  • Set rules for the competition up front, stick to them
  • Decide how many from each region are to qualify for the finals before the season starts. We need to encourage the smaller regions to grow. If this perhaps leads to a weaker player from a smaller region qualifying down the table they will self select anyway as to whether they wish to make the journey for the finals
  • Set the date(s) for the finals at the start of the season so folk who think they are in with a shot can plan accordingly
  • Decide to host finals at the ukpp IF IT HAPPENS. But have contingency plans, alternative dates diarised so folk can plan
  • Have the league position tables set up so that what they display in terms of A and B qualifiers translates into reality
  • Design the finals recognising that whatever number you want or think will show, this will not happen. league format is perfect for this as it can accommodate drop outs
  • If no UKPP, A final one day, usual league type venue. Maybe 8 to 12 games, league style (depending on macines available)
  • If no UKPP, B final another day, usual league type venue. Maybe 8 to 12 games, league style (depending on machines available)
  • Finals much closer to the end of the league season, Sep or Oct time
  • Forget about tailoring things to secure points. if you get some, you get some. If not, 90 per cent of league players will not care
If a big enough venue exists to have both finals on one day, great. But there is no need to use one, especially if this means arbitrarily deciding who is in and who is not in an attempt to keep numbers down so numbers fit the venue. To my mind it is far worse to exclude folk who should be there (like the 7 and 8 placed guys in the midlands who do not know whether they will get to attend the finals), than includeca couple of extras that will be unlikely to win anyway

It could make life so much easier to split the finals. Just see them as a league meeting. That way you will end up with around 30 potential venues.
 
Wayne J said:
The problem I have with Ian's format is that the league portion is only being used for seeding. There's no guarantee that finishing 1st is going to equate to a higher overall finish.

A further option, other than the format I suggested earlier, would be after the league format, play a ladder style system similar to the UKCS finals. That would reward the higher finishers in the league. The main drawback being the length of time that would take.
Click to expand...

Inclined to agree with you that if we do a league style, it needs to have some more meaning to it than just seeding as we can derive seeding from the regional leagues. Let's see what Martin says re WPPR and consider further.
 
My thoughts are that a league format followed by Wayne's suggestion of 1v 2, 3 v 4, 5 v 6 etc. Is the way to keep the finals as close to a league format as possible, that way after the league portion no player can move up or down by more than one spot and keeps as much of the integrity of the league as possible. (Also no need to have A & B playoffs or change the qualifying spots from the year long advertising!)

I disagree with Wayne about posting the results next year after each league meet, this is mainly because the UK league overall will be the biggest comp of the year.

I too am very disappointed the finals are taking place next year. I did speak to Greg a while back about the fact that with the rule changes IFPA are bringing in at the end of the year, many people that participated may not even be included in the results unless they attended more than half of the meets. Playing the finals in this calendar year would have prevented this.

Greg, can you please confirm that the trophies for each league will be presented on the day?
 
David, I've posted my thoughts on your points below. All valid and I can see your reasoning behind them although not sure I agree with all you've said as below. Not sure how to reply to many quotes without my responses coming out within your quote, so might not be that well formatted below but hopefully you can follow:

DRD said:
Thinking about the 2017 league

I think that there are around 10 UKCS events, which presumably all generate the points

Do we need to tortuously manipulate the league finals to increase the number of UK points events from 10 to 11 ? Drag the event out with some lengthy knockout at the end, so many will have left by the time the winner is identified ?

> If all events were equal then agree does one more make that much difference BUT in this case yes since most UKCS events don't earn that many points (eg 8 for winner). The league will max out on players and machines (due to the regions counting as qualifiers) so in this case it is one of the rare opportunities for UK players to earn decent points (>30 or more) without going to a big competition in Europe so I know there's a number of players who would not want to give up this opportunity.

I think that the current finals arrangements have a number of flaws. I know that events like the loss of the ukpp have led to this, but 2017 could be planned in such a way to avoid problems ....
  • In combining three finals events, you lose the feeling of them being finals. You do not host three football, darts ... finals on one day
  • Three simultaneous events means masses of players making it more challenging to find a venue with enough capacity
> My thinking of combining was to try to make the traveling to the event more worthwhile for some to attend which is in the past why we ran the UKCS Hangover at the same weekend as the UKCS finals. This year there's not time to fit in the UKCS Hangover. A and B divisions will run concurrently so view this as one comp not two but main point is it's more difficult to find two suitable venues and then you need someone to run both events if hold A and B separately. Shame the national show is not happening so we're trying to do the best we can.
  • Spreading over two days is a double edged sword. Working folk may want to/ be under pressure to spend one weekend day with family

>The UKCS and League finals will be held on separate days and a fair number of people will only be qualified for one or other so only need to attend on that day.
  • Trying to manipulate the league A and B into groups of 16 means making arbitrary decisions about who gets stuck in playoffs etc. What happens on the day if there is a no show ? What if too many turn up ? If fewer than 16, some lucky folk get byes etc etc . All this takes away the central theme of league play, same number of games
> I do think that with drop outs this wouldn't be a problem ie all A qualifiers will be able to compete in A but let's wait and see how everything pans out with considering the format and every chance this will no longer be relevant under the league style if we can use that as part of the format.

My suggestions for the 2017 league would be to keep it simple and truthful to the league format

> Thanks, always good to have ideas:)
  • Set rules for the competition up front, stick to them
> Agree but the change in WPPR rules made us reconsider for this year
  • Decide how many from each region are to qualify for the finals before the season starts. We need to encourage the smaller regions to grow. If this perhaps leads to a weaker player from a smaller region qualifying down the table they will self select anyway as to whether they wish to make the journey for the finals
>Trying to be as fair as possible and we only know numbers of players which determines the number of qualifiers for each region until after the end of the season which furthermore was delayed due to the finals being held later and uncertainty over a 6th meet in South West.
  • Set the date(s) for the finals at the start of the season so folk who think they are in with a shot can plan accordingly
> Of course we were waiting for the UKPP annoncement and then had to reconsider. Also not helped by original plan of hosting at Arcade Club not working out.
  • Decide to host finals at the ukpp IF IT HAPPENS. But have contingency plans, alternative dates diarised so folk can plan
> Good in an ideal world but potentially a lot of effort to set up contingency plans when they may not be needed
  • Have the league position tables set up so that what they display in terms of A and B qualifiers translates into reality
> Agree this should have been made clearer that it was uncertain
  • Design the finals recognising that whatever number you want or think will show, this will not happen. league format is perfect for this as it can accommodate drop outs
> Agree better, not easy with knockout formats so assuming league style OK for WPPR, will sort this
  • If no UKPP, A final one day, usual league type venue. Maybe 8 to 12 games, league style (depending on macines available)
> If people would rather do a one day event somewhere they might have to travel a long distance to, then yes can do this instead. Let's see what people think how this year works and then see what's wanted for next year.
  • If no UKPP, B final another day, usual league type venue. Maybe 8 to 12 games, league style (depending on machines available)
  • Finals much closer to the end of the league season, Sep or Oct time
> The only reason we ran the season to mid summer was to be able to hold finals at the national show in August. Why not run over a calendar year which gives more time as often few league meets are arranged in the Autumn (as I think peole think we have lots of time and no rush to organise) when if we ran over the calendar year, we'd need to do more in Autumn to fit them all in the year. More psychological I know, but my experience.
  • Forget about tailoring things to secure points. if you get some, you get some. If not, 90 per cent of league players will not care
If a big enough venue exists to have both finals on one day, great. But there is no need to use one, especially if this means arbitrarily deciding who is in and who is not in an attempt to keep numbers down so numbers fit the venue. To my mind it is far worse to exclude folk who should be there (like the 7 and 8 placed guys in the midlands who do not know whether they will get to attend the finals), than includeca couple of extras that will be unlikely to win anyway

It could make life so much easier to split the finals. Just see them as a league meeting. That way you will end up with around 30 potential venues.
Click to expand...

Some good ideas worth further consideration for next year. As I say let's see where we end up with this year's format, how the one weekend event is viewed vs separate events and agree format and venue for next year.
 
Matt Vince said:
the UK league overall will be the biggest comp of the year.

.
Click to expand...

It likely will, but there will be many more games played than is necessary to max out, as well as more than the max 64 contributing players.

Also if this is being submitted as a single comp - how do you rank those people who don't make the finals? How do you rank someone who finished 7th in the Northern league against someone who finished 7th in the Scottish League?

Individual submissions would negate those problems
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom