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!

UKPinfest 2019 23rd, 24th, 25th August

Have the organisers considered randomising the 3 games to play for qualifying for each entry? Would probably make even more money that way.

I can see as many downsides as upsides on that, just tracking it would be challenging.

Cheers,
Neil.
 
I can see as many downsides as upsides on that, just tracking it would be challenging.
Wouldn't be hard for software to add you to 3 random queues simultaneously. Once the games are played it's no different to choosing the games yourself with regard to ranking.
 
Wouldn't be hard for software to add you to 3 random queues simultaneously. Once the games are played it's no different to choosing the games yourself with regard to ranking.

Well you wouldn't queue them. You would simply stop them from being able to queue on other games - there is a lot of state to think about. Not impossible but I'm not sure what problem this is trying to solve.

Neil.
 
As much as I think the current system is fine - I actually think it would be a right laugh to have the games randomly selected per ticket. I don't think it does anything to prevent 'illegitimate' wins as we all know that sometimes, we can approach a game we've never played before and have a miraculous first-ever-game anyway - but it would 1. be fun and 2. if computerised (and if said system was working as sadly wasn't the case this time, I'm reading) then it would limit the contention for any 'popular' games in the lineup, and it would give playtime to games that would be avoided because they were playing hard. The last ticket-system qualifier I played in (Manchester Play Expo some years back) had less players on Twilight Zone because of sensitive tilt, less players on TAF than it would normally get as it was greased fast as lightning (but still many players) and less players on the old EMs... just because they are EMs, really.

The big downside is that you're better off throwing the idea in the bin if you needed to go back to paper tickets, as it's a bit of a faff to create a good random system by hand.
 
Well you wouldn't queue them. You would simply stop them from being able to queue on other games - there is a lot of state to think about. Not impossible but I'm not sure what problem this is trying to solve.

Neil.
It would be pretty easy to just do random selection of games - and then order the games played on a player's ticket based on how many 'outstanding' tickets there are on that game, as a gentle push to play the games that have fewer people in the queue. Law of averages would mean you'd likely get smaller queues randomly instead of large queues for 'popular' games. It would also stop people from waiting to buy tickets because they see someone on their 'preferred' game as it would be a random pick.

I could see advantages to doing is, as distributing the wear and tear across all the games and making sure that the unpopular games in the lineup got some play.
 
Paul and Wayne did an epic job and the tournament ran well especially considering there was a problem with the software which is a TD's worse nightmare. Forgetting the money, the consistency you need across three machines I tend to struggle with, a little more time and I might have qualified but I entered as I wanted to play Circus and that beautiful Robocop, but I couldn't get a decent score across three machines. Pump and dump will always be controversial but in my view its a good format especially for rubbish players like me that need a few goes to get a decent score together. NYCPC runs that format and its a lot more pricey than pinfest :D

Being an owner of the game gives you no benefit. In fact it probably gives you more pressure because you know the game. See how well I perform at tourneys I run at the DOMINO Arcade, i.e. not very well :D

As an example Wayne made one change to my GOTG at the league finals that completely changed how it played and how I play the game that made my own knowledge of the game almost valueless :D

Yes I don't like the format but the tournament was well managed.
 
Heaven knows I've had more absolute sheeeeeeee-ite games on F14 than is reasonable for a machine owner...

...and if you want a right laugh, ask Steve one day about the number of credits I've had on his Tron, and how well I still can't do on it despite!
 
As much as I think the current system is fine - I actually think it would be a right laugh to have the games randomly selected per ticket. I don't think it does anything to prevent 'illegitimate' wins as we all know that sometimes, we can approach a game we've never played before and have a miraculous first-ever-game anyway - but it would 1. be fun and 2. if computerised (and if said system was working as sadly wasn't the case this time, I'm reading) then it would limit the contention for any 'popular' games in the lineup, and it would give playtime to games that would be avoided because they were playing hard. The last ticket-system qualifier I played in (Manchester Play Expo some years back) had less players on Twilight Zone because of sensitive tilt, less players on TAF than it would normally get as it was greased fast as lightning (but still many players) and less players on the old EMs... just because they are EMs, really.

The big downside is that you're better off throwing the idea in the bin if you needed to go back to paper tickets, as it's a bit of a faff to create a good random system by hand.
I think it would actually encourage some people to buy more entries, waiting for the random 3 machines selected to be the ones they wanted to chose anyway. That would strengthen the argument that the deeper your pockets the more chance you have - which is a negative.

Paul, Phil and I will discuss the pluses and minuses of the way the comp ran, along with the data, in the coming weeks before deciding what tweaks will be made for next years comp. There are unlikely to be major changes, one of the most likely is limiting the number of tickets you buy to 10 (so 30 individual games at £50).
 
I think it would actually encourage some people to buy more entries, waiting for the random 3 machines selected to be the ones they wanted to chose anyway. That would strengthen the argument that the deeper your pockets the more chance you have - which is a negative.
True. Whether it outweighs the idea of balancing game wear and tear is probably a debate rather than an obvious choice. Possibly not a good tradeoff?
 
Healthy discussion is fine and welcome. Wayne and I are just the latest in a long line of people who have run tournaments at that venue, and after each one there are pages and pages of debate about doing things differently, doing things better. I think we've all learned a lot from the years and years of debate, so it is always taken onboard.

In the past there were criticisms of taking too many machines, or having the machines face the wrong way, taking up too much space, taking too much time, overrunning the end of the event and so on and so on. So this was just the latest attempt to make everyone happy, which of course is an impossible task. Even before these comments there are plenty of things that I think we'd do differently given the chance, as each attempt is another step at improving things.

I don't think I'd consider randomising the three games though. If anything that would just lead to accusations of being unfair on the X players that were forced to play Circus for example, which would prove to be a very risky gamble on an otherwise good card.

There is a huge amount of 'meta' strategy with the card format, which I think a few players started to pick up and ask me questions about. Which games do you pick. Which order do you play them. Do you want your best game first, or last. Do you want to try and boost the score on a card you've got submitted, or reduce the scores on the cards people ahead of you have played. What are the pros/cons of voiding this card. I think it's a really interesting format, and for all the talk of people 'buying their way in' we've pretty much proven that's nonsense.

Also Kudos to @RuyLopez for his apology. I still have a good amount of respect for Rich, and the way he has handled this deserves credit. I hope to see you at many more events, and crushing the opposition with your excellent (and fair!) play
 
Last edited:
sadly that I don't think statistically that stand up to scrutiny, really only two games are underplayed in the comp, and surprise surprise its the two least well known, although Circus kind of bucks that trend and TNA 10% of the median but I know a lot of folks don't like that game in competition.

87 plays on Aerosmith
95 plays on Circus
86 on Creature
55 on F14
87 on Getaway
94 on IMDN
85 on Roadshow
67 on Robocop
75 on TNA
64 on Robocop.

So if I was playing. I'd keep buying entries until I got the three games I wanted.
 
I'd like to apologise to the pinball community for starting another game on F14 Tomcat without recording the first score during the qualification phase in the Daventry Comp , it was a spontaneous moment of madness and stupidity and I'm feeling truly sorry. However, I would like to point out that I never intended to submit any scores from this ticket and voided this ticket and was looking to get practise in on machines that I hadn't yet played in the tournament bank . I know that it wasn't fair to others to play an extra game on this machine and I have disqualified myself from this tournament and returned the prize money .

@RuyLopez , you made an error of judgement, received your yellow card, hopefully learnt your lesson, time to move on. Give people a second chance, if stuff happens again, red card


Don't ever forget people VAR, is always watching, in comps,even in the hotel bar 😀
 
F14 was avoided as folks know its a bitch and hard to be consitent. Too fast too bright too noisy. hang on thats why l love itmuch. Off to play now!
 
Are we having a long discussion on competitions now because we are bored of talking about where and when Pinfest should be held???
Seriously, let's let the people who have the balls to organise things like this, do the best that they can. They will never please everyone but they will do their best. Thank you Wayne and Paul for organising the comps, even if i didn't take part in any. Thank you Big Phil for organising the main event. I loved it. Period.
 
No one has commented on the fact that the games in the Round of 16, Quarters and Semis were all pre-picked ensuring you never played the same machine twice.
In addition the games in the final were picked with 1 machine from each era being randomly chosen.

It lessens the advantage of knowing a particular machine well, as you may not draw it before getting knocked out, or it's the 3rd game in the best of 3 you win 2-0.

It also helped Tim plan where the streaming rigs would be.

I can't think of any negatives from it?
 
Healthy discussion is fine and welcome. Wayne and I are just the latest in a long line of people who have run tournaments at that venue, and after each one there are pages and pages of debate about doing things differently, doing things better.

And this year you did it better than any previous year so thank you Paul and Wayne, top job.
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to add my thanks. Although I could only make it for the Sunday this year, the overall impression that I came away with was one of professionalism throughout. Big Phil, you and your family/helpers do an incredible job and we are very lucky to have you in the community. All the team keeping the machines running, thank you for your hard work, it makes a world of difference, you are rock stars.

Tim your streaming is incredible, just amazing to witness, a labour of love that we all massively benefit from. I salute you sir.

The competition was superbly run, Wayne and Paul, you are an excellent team with a wealth of knowledge and experience in running a tournament, in my opinion you did a fantastic job. Obviously I was only there for the Sunday, but Karl's system worked flawlessly and again adds to the overall professional feel of the tournament. It's impossible to please everyone, but I trust both of you and can clearly see that you give a huge amount of time and planning to the tournament, conscientiously making decisions, nothing is by accident. It was a pleasure to be part of, hopefully next year we will get a few more players and some coming from Europe.

Thanks for all the effort guys, I for one massively appreciate it
 
If players were banned from entering a tournament if their machine was used people would simply not pledge their machines meaning that the comp would be unlikely to run in the first place.

Of the 10 machines used, 6 of them (F14, HS2, RS, TNA, Circus, Robocop) were donated by people who did not enter the competition at all. CftBL was donated by Flipout (at my request to Matt), and 3 came from me (IMDN & WPT owned by me, AS loaned by Courtney).

I have never owned half of those machines, but know the rules inside out, as I do for the vast majority of JJP, Stern, Williams and Bally games. That is experience built up over many years playing, watching streams, and reading rule sets. The machines were all published beforehand as soon as I had them confirmed, with the exception of Robocop, which was a very late substitution (less than 5 minutes before doors opening) due to Black Jack failing.

The machines were picked based on suitability for competition play, availability (preference given to those machines duplicates were pledged - TNA, Robocop and CftBL) and the likelihood that they would all stand up to a weekend of hard playing - to suggest that I cheated by putting my own machines in I find distasteful. In fact I find it is generally a disadvantage, as having played a game set up a certain way at home and then setting them up in a different place with different levels and tilt sensitivities the machine plays completely differently. My scores on IMDN were well below par from what I would expect to get at home (to get on the highscore table it needed a score over 2Billion). The same applies to playing a different version of the same game.

How the comp was based on greed is still an argument I don't understand - the prize money is to encourage people from further afield (Europe mainly) to travel and thus increase the appeal of the show. I understand that you are not interested in competition, you have made that perfectly clear on any number of occasions, but many others are - the competition is to appeal to them, if you don't want to enter don't, as many people didn't.

I agree with a lot of what Wayne says above and as others have said huge thanks to Wayne and Paul and co for a well run tournament which takes a lot of time and effort.

I also appreciate how much of a challenge it is to get 10 reliable machines from all eras for the comp and I don't think that Wayne had a lot of options with which machines were available for the comp.

However, I do think it is a big advantage to play machines you're familiar with especially those you own. I appreciate the set up won't be identical as they will have been moved but rules and strategy familiarity on a game you've played so many times as opposed to one you're less familiar with having maybe played a half dozen times and researched the rules (eg WPT, Aerosmith and IMDN for most of us) is a huge advantage. Hence the advantage given to winners of each region in the league to pick a machine for the finals.

This advantage is balanced out somewhat by only being able to play each machine once in the knockout rounds.

As far as money is concerned, prize money is always a nice bonus but never for me a driving factor and would be equally as happy if it all the entrance fees went to charity.

I do however think that the £10 minimum entry fee and £5 for extra goes did deter some players from entering. I thought we wanted to try to encourage as many people to compete as possible (balanced out by practical constraints in not having queues too long). So it probably does need a fee per entry to help limit queues but I think that fee is currently too high. I'd suggest £5 for one entry, £10 for 3 and £3 for each subsequent one with an upper limit of 10 entries (or maybe 8).
 
I think money will always cause debate, some people can afford 100" plasma TVs and the rest of us cant! :)

If the idea is truly to encourage new blood into the comps then why not give 1 entry in to the comp with every show entry.

Not suggesting that the show subsides the comp or contributes to the prize fund. The free entries wouldn't add to the prize fund but might encourage people who hadn't competed to buy repeat entries.

Not sure the prize money will get to the level it needs to to encourage people to travel from abroad.

Quite a lot of brits travel abroad for comps, but how many choose which comps to go to based on the available prizes. Larger amount of WPPRs would probably be more incentive than larger cash prizes.
 
Yes, the format favours those people that can afford more entries, but if you're a consistent player, you shouldn't need loads, it would be interesting to know what the maximum number of entries any one person bought on the Saturday @Wizcat ?

1567003539675.png

4 entries was perhaps obviously the median. 18 was the highest. There are a cluster above the average near the cut-off position (24) as people fight to squeeze in. The argument that you can buy your way in doesn't hold true though in my opinion.
 
Is there any data on entries purchased vs qualifying position rather than entries submitted? Some people bought entries for practice but didnt submit, so it could be (though I doubt it is) that the top finishers bought 10s of entries each to practice.
 
Is there any data on entries purchased vs qualifying position rather than entries submitted? Some people bought entries for practice but didnt submit, so it could be (though I doubt it is) that the top finishers bought 10s of entries each to practice.

I don't have that data, but you're right in that some of those top finishers were voiding tickets. Not quite 10's of entries though
 
Back
Top Bottom