I can't be bothered to come up with my own reply so will just agree with everything Nick said :>)
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!
WPPR points and competitive play in the UK
- Thread starter roadshow16
- Start date
I can't be bothered to come up with my own reply so will just agree with everything Nick said :>)
Thanks roadshow16 for opening that thread. I tried to open a discussion in France about it but no one cared. The good French players travel (they have more $ and time than I do) while the average Joe has less-than-zero interest for WPPR points. I guess the new rules were implemented to avoid extreme cases (I saw a tourney with 3 players in the US - winner got 25 points!), my feeling is that the correction iwas too extreme. The problem with the new system is that it reinforces the difference between pinball heavens and pinball deserts. I live in the later (welcome to SW France). Before 5.0 we could organize small (10-24 participants) tourneys with a decent payoff. We actually had the occasional good player coming to us with the false hope of easily getting 25 points. They often went home slightly disappointed ;-)
In 2015 I tried to keep TGP high and stick to that stupid 25 meaningful games rule (Do you need 25 games to know which player is best among 12!? No...Among 120 maybe...). That was hopeless, many players had less than 5 tourneys registered, etc. I remember a tourney in a place with lots of new players (during a Manga / video game convention. 54 players but only 4 or 5 listed before. Winner got... 0.77 points). I made a full list of all tourneys that were organized in 2015 in France. Assuming a player had participated to all of them and won all 31 of them (including side/classics), he would have scored about 250 points for the best 20 results... still not making it to the Top 100.
In 2016 I do not care anymore. I won't even bother declaring tourneys to IFPA. We have our regional league, 199 players participated to at least one event this season and global rankings can be found at http://www.flipper-fr.org/aquiflip/classement.php
Basically we are happy with our League. I do not have the money or time to travel to big events. The only exception I try to make is EPC when it does not clash with my work schedule.
Just wanted to know: are Country directors involved in the decisions to change rules? Or is it simply a US thing?
In 2015 I tried to keep TGP high and stick to that stupid 25 meaningful games rule (Do you need 25 games to know which player is best among 12!? No...Among 120 maybe...). That was hopeless, many players had less than 5 tourneys registered, etc. I remember a tourney in a place with lots of new players (during a Manga / video game convention. 54 players but only 4 or 5 listed before. Winner got... 0.77 points). I made a full list of all tourneys that were organized in 2015 in France. Assuming a player had participated to all of them and won all 31 of them (including side/classics), he would have scored about 250 points for the best 20 results... still not making it to the Top 100.
In 2016 I do not care anymore. I won't even bother declaring tourneys to IFPA. We have our regional league, 199 players participated to at least one event this season and global rankings can be found at http://www.flipper-fr.org/aquiflip/classement.php
Basically we are happy with our League. I do not have the money or time to travel to big events. The only exception I try to make is EPC when it does not clash with my work schedule.
Just wanted to know: are Country directors involved in the decisions to change rules? Or is it simply a US thing?
OP
OP
Interesting to read everyone's responses.
My thoughts for what it's worth. I guess I would now consider myself to be an unapologetic very competitive player. It was competition that brought me back to pinball after a 5 year gap. I think that for some reason within the UK, for lots of people this is considered to be quite a negative thing. My Englishness has made me pander around this fact for a few years, but in reality it is the reason I'm still into pinball.
The thing that drives me now, is to play against the very best players in the world whenever I can and learn from them. I don't get to play that much, so I try to make it to the best tournaments I can. My ranking used to be important to me, but now as long as I can qualify for the world champs, it's not a big deal.
In my opinion the changes to the ranking system do better reflect a more accurate way of ranking pinball play.The guaranteed 25 point tournament was flawed, it encouraged pinball, but as jlm33 pointed out a 3 person tournament does not deserve 25 points. I don't think it is perfect, (as we have seen with the NU super league) hence the reason there are revisions all the time, I think they are trying to improve it all the time. I also agree it is frustrating when the goal posts are continually moving, but I really do value what the IFPA does and the time and effort that goes in.
I think we have it a bit wrong in the UK at the moment, and from what jlm33 says, it seems other areas of Europe are struggling for similar reasons. I think we have tried to tick all the boxes in order to make tournaments valuable in the UK, but this has been at the expense of the fun and enjoyable nature of competing. Very few people in the UK want to play 25 games of competitive pinball in one day, it's a chore and a slog. This has meant that less people have competed, meaning that the tournaments aren't valuable anyway!! So we have ended up in the middle ground which isn't great for anyone. I dont know if there is a clear path out of it, but I don't think we have it quite right at the moment.
My hope was that the UKCS would become more and more important for the UK scene, and I think it is working in some ways, but like the IFPA system needs to continually improve. But at the base level we are so reliant on tournament hosts' effort and time. The fewer people (for whatever reason) that go to tournaments, the less tournaments we will see in the UK, which means that any system will be ineffective.
Ultimately, in my opinion, it's more fun to compete, play some pinball and get out there and support the tournaments we have in the UK.
Cheers, Craig
My thoughts for what it's worth. I guess I would now consider myself to be an unapologetic very competitive player. It was competition that brought me back to pinball after a 5 year gap. I think that for some reason within the UK, for lots of people this is considered to be quite a negative thing. My Englishness has made me pander around this fact for a few years, but in reality it is the reason I'm still into pinball.
The thing that drives me now, is to play against the very best players in the world whenever I can and learn from them. I don't get to play that much, so I try to make it to the best tournaments I can. My ranking used to be important to me, but now as long as I can qualify for the world champs, it's not a big deal.
In my opinion the changes to the ranking system do better reflect a more accurate way of ranking pinball play.The guaranteed 25 point tournament was flawed, it encouraged pinball, but as jlm33 pointed out a 3 person tournament does not deserve 25 points. I don't think it is perfect, (as we have seen with the NU super league) hence the reason there are revisions all the time, I think they are trying to improve it all the time. I also agree it is frustrating when the goal posts are continually moving, but I really do value what the IFPA does and the time and effort that goes in.
I think we have it a bit wrong in the UK at the moment, and from what jlm33 says, it seems other areas of Europe are struggling for similar reasons. I think we have tried to tick all the boxes in order to make tournaments valuable in the UK, but this has been at the expense of the fun and enjoyable nature of competing. Very few people in the UK want to play 25 games of competitive pinball in one day, it's a chore and a slog. This has meant that less people have competed, meaning that the tournaments aren't valuable anyway!! So we have ended up in the middle ground which isn't great for anyone. I dont know if there is a clear path out of it, but I don't think we have it quite right at the moment.
My hope was that the UKCS would become more and more important for the UK scene, and I think it is working in some ways, but like the IFPA system needs to continually improve. But at the base level we are so reliant on tournament hosts' effort and time. The fewer people (for whatever reason) that go to tournaments, the less tournaments we will see in the UK, which means that any system will be ineffective.
Ultimately, in my opinion, it's more fun to compete, play some pinball and get out there and support the tournaments we have in the UK.
Cheers, Craig
i would love to do that, but unfortunately most tournaments i enter, i get to play on 6 or so games, then i didn't make the cut (usually the top third or the top quarter) so that's game over for me, and then i have to watch the good players having all the fun for the next X hours, usually also while those machines are unavailable to me to play on. seems a shame to travel more than an hour for six games and feeling excluded, so i don't bother. i would much, much rather the qualifying stages were over 25 games, i'd definitely compete more if that were the case.
i'm actually quite jealous of the Americans who get to pay to try again to qualify, so in that respect i'm a supporter of @Matt Vince's new selfie play-as-much-as-you-like London league rules.
Most events I organise at Special When Lit are designed to be inclusive so that everyone plays all day long. These are not very well supported, so please do advise me of where we go wrong...?
I wasn't being critical Peter, those sound excellent, I'd love to attend the next one if I can.
In response to jlm's excellent points, IFPA currently shows:
16,253 players in the USA
1,458 players in France
640 in the UK
So we're clearly at a massive disadvantage due to player base. Maybe the IFPA should consider a handicap system, based on the number of registered/active players in the country. That could mean (using arbitrary numbers) that French events get a 10% bonus to their points, and UK events get 15% or so?
16,253 players in the USA
1,458 players in France
640 in the UK
So we're clearly at a massive disadvantage due to player base. Maybe the IFPA should consider a handicap system, based on the number of registered/active players in the country. That could mean (using arbitrary numbers) that French events get a 10% bonus to their points, and UK events get 15% or so?
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 2,808
From an outside looking in perspective, the UK doesn't seem to have one big tournament i.e kind of like Wimbledon or Golf's British Open?
One big tournament that really is worth winning. I know there is a UK Open at Daventry?
Thinking something similar to the World Championships and European Open?
UK Championship? UK Masters? With big ranking points obviously.
One big tournament that really is worth winning. I know there is a UK Open at Daventry?
Thinking something similar to the World Championships and European Open?
UK Championship? UK Masters? With big ranking points obviously.
Mine never got going! The only cradling i get to do is rock a toddler to sleep.
I could possibly get to 4 small gatherings a year, ideally over the winter/colder months. I'd only go to paid venues if the games there were newer and more interesting than the ones i have at home or others homes.
It would be more of a pi$$up for me I think.
seems like alot has already been said but to add my views
I love to play pinball both competitive and socially for fun but it is dis-heartning when you have done well in a comp to find it awards little or no points, maybe there should be a clearer indication of how many points will be awarded as an event is announced. I havent read through the full wppr ruleset but what i have it seems complex and confusing. people like myself can only make so many comp's a year and I would favour those events where it was a comp worth winning OR it is a show based purely on fun rather than a pointless competition.
Also as someone said earlier we have a number of venues in different parts of the country, maybe we should organise some kind of large countrywide league to be played throughout the year at these different locations?
Like it or not the changes have happened and I think we will have to do our best to adapt.
Thanks for reading,
Andy
I love to play pinball both competitive and socially for fun but it is dis-heartning when you have done well in a comp to find it awards little or no points, maybe there should be a clearer indication of how many points will be awarded as an event is announced. I havent read through the full wppr ruleset but what i have it seems complex and confusing. people like myself can only make so many comp's a year and I would favour those events where it was a comp worth winning OR it is a show based purely on fun rather than a pointless competition.
Also as someone said earlier we have a number of venues in different parts of the country, maybe we should organise some kind of large countrywide league to be played throughout the year at these different locations?
Like it or not the changes have happened and I think we will have to do our best to adapt.
Thanks for reading,
Andy
I am currently running a league at Tilt which would have maxed out for points if 64 people attended over the last 5 months.
I know it doesn't help running it on a Monday night, but I've had 38 different people attend. Unfortunately of those 38, 20 of them don't count as they'd never played in comp before. They have attended every meeting but it will take them 2 and a half years before they contribute to the points total.
(To combat this I'm going to run a single high score comp on each night, it'll be worth very few points, but will mean that people will contribute to the rating much quicker)
The problem may simply be that their aren't enough players in the UK who are prepared to travel to all of the comps.
I know it doesn't help running it on a Monday night, but I've had 38 different people attend. Unfortunately of those 38, 20 of them don't count as they'd never played in comp before. They have attended every meeting but it will take them 2 and a half years before they contribute to the points total.
(To combat this I'm going to run a single high score comp on each night, it'll be worth very few points, but will mean that people will contribute to the rating much quicker)
The problem may simply be that their aren't enough players in the UK who are prepared to travel to all of the comps.
Just to show an example of how the current ranking system is not fit for purpose, and gives no indication whatsoever of current form/ranking.
In the above table are the points awarded for winning 5 competitions, alongside what they are worth now with depreciation.
The change from 2014 to 2015 is clear to see. With the exception of the Xmas Cracker (when I changed the format to try and get as many points available as possible), none of the formats have changed significantly, nor the number of players, or rating of those players.
How can it be right that a person winning the exact same competition, in the exact same format, 3 or 4 years ago is still earning more points than someone who won the competition in the last year?
Until all competitions pre the 2015 change have depreciated to zero points, the ranking system will be ineffectual.
I think the answer is obvious...
OP
OP
I agree with everything you are saying Wayne, but they were left with 2 bad options. The other option was to start from zero again and can you imagine the uproar that would have caused, all the money spent accruing those points from people. I think they would have lost a lot more players and they decided on what they felt was the lesser of 2 evils.
I agree though, that the whole system is skewed at the moment with points from different systems still counting towards people's ranking.
Lots of people have been talking about a countrywide league or ranking system. Is that not what the UK Championship Series is? Is it not providing that function? How could it be improved? It has clearly lost a bit of momentum this year and if there are things we can do to improve it, myself and I'm sure @robotgreg would love to hear.
Cheers, Craig
I agree though, that the whole system is skewed at the moment with points from different systems still counting towards people's ranking.
Lots of people have been talking about a countrywide league or ranking system. Is that not what the UK Championship Series is? Is it not providing that function? How could it be improved? It has clearly lost a bit of momentum this year and if there are things we can do to improve it, myself and I'm sure @robotgreg would love to hear.
Cheers, Craig
Wayne
I totally agree with you regarding the disparity between points under the old and new systems. I did mention this to Martin when he first told me about the proposed change a couple of years ago,
I can understand that it would have been way too much of a task to re rate all the old results under the new system so although not 100% accurate, my suggestion was to take a proportion off the old results so that the points awarded for the old results would be more in line with how many are now available under the new system. As I say unless you do a comparison event by event (which would have been possible by comparing points under new system to points awarded prior year and adjusting prior year down as the new results come in during the year of change although time consuming) you'd have to apply a blanket reduction of somewhere between 50-75% to all old results. Not truly accurate but surely better and more comparable than the situation we currently have and you've described well.
Ultimately though do WPPR points really matter? When it comes down to it surely it's more about the fun of competing and socialising and if you do well in a comp, then the satisfaction comes from that achievement and a trophy if lucky, not the fact that you earned x no of WPPR points.
That's also why I think the UKCS is worthwhile as if WPPR points are low for an event, at least the UKCS points will be meaningful within the UK.
I suppose it comes down to how bothered you are about a WPPR rank. I think we all know who the best players in the UK are by seeing how well they play and do in comps and agree that although the WPPR ranks don't necessarily reflect the true top 10 in the right order, does that REALLY matter?
The one downside I do see from the impact of the new WPPR points system is where the format of events has been changed to try to max out WPPR points to the detriment of the fun of the competition where it may take too long and deter the more casual player and I believe this is one of the reasons why we've seen less players attend UKCS events this year and less events planned. I'm not saying it's the only reason as I'm sure there are many others, some general, some down to individuals' circumstances but if we could focus on making the comps fun without regard to WPPR points then hopefully we might get more players competing again. Unfortunately the format of the comp is down to the organiser but I would encourage those involved to consider this.
Just my thoughts but as Craig says if there's anything he and I can do within the UKCS to attract more players to comps and make it more enjoyable, then please let us know.
Cheers
Greg
I totally agree with you regarding the disparity between points under the old and new systems. I did mention this to Martin when he first told me about the proposed change a couple of years ago,
I can understand that it would have been way too much of a task to re rate all the old results under the new system so although not 100% accurate, my suggestion was to take a proportion off the old results so that the points awarded for the old results would be more in line with how many are now available under the new system. As I say unless you do a comparison event by event (which would have been possible by comparing points under new system to points awarded prior year and adjusting prior year down as the new results come in during the year of change although time consuming) you'd have to apply a blanket reduction of somewhere between 50-75% to all old results. Not truly accurate but surely better and more comparable than the situation we currently have and you've described well.
Ultimately though do WPPR points really matter? When it comes down to it surely it's more about the fun of competing and socialising and if you do well in a comp, then the satisfaction comes from that achievement and a trophy if lucky, not the fact that you earned x no of WPPR points.
That's also why I think the UKCS is worthwhile as if WPPR points are low for an event, at least the UKCS points will be meaningful within the UK.
I suppose it comes down to how bothered you are about a WPPR rank. I think we all know who the best players in the UK are by seeing how well they play and do in comps and agree that although the WPPR ranks don't necessarily reflect the true top 10 in the right order, does that REALLY matter?
The one downside I do see from the impact of the new WPPR points system is where the format of events has been changed to try to max out WPPR points to the detriment of the fun of the competition where it may take too long and deter the more casual player and I believe this is one of the reasons why we've seen less players attend UKCS events this year and less events planned. I'm not saying it's the only reason as I'm sure there are many others, some general, some down to individuals' circumstances but if we could focus on making the comps fun without regard to WPPR points then hopefully we might get more players competing again. Unfortunately the format of the comp is down to the organiser but I would encourage those involved to consider this.
Just my thoughts but as Craig says if there's anything he and I can do within the UKCS to attract more players to comps and make it more enjoyable, then please let us know.
Cheers
Greg
Another option, which would, have required a great deal of work, would have been to recalibrate all the tournaments in 4.0 to the new 5.0. It would have meant everyone would have been affected the same way and although tournament styles would have been awarded different points at least it would be consistent.
The problem I see with the new format is that it places way too much focus on number of entrants, up to 64, and games played by the winner, up to 25. It means that it is easy to abuse, by setting up a league, rather than the intention of making the big international comps woth more points. Maybe it could be based on the total games played by all competitors. By making it games played by the winner, it's easy to load the far end of the competition with best of 5 games to reach the target, whereas early rounds tend to fly by quickly eliminating lots of lesser players, thus deterring them from entering the comp in the first place. (I actually reversed this format in the Xmas Cracker last year, so the competition sped up as it went on, but at a cost of WPPR points).
I refuse to change the format of tournaments I run just to gain points, if that is to the detriment of the inclusiveness of the tournament. Ideally I try to have it so the worst player still plays over 50% of the games the winner plays. I think that all of the comps I've ran have been varied and fun for all of the players and more importantly have rewarded the players who have played best on the day by allowing them to advance deeper in the tournament, but that's not reflected in the points awarded compared to a league with 64 people in, over half of whom may only actually play 1 or 2 games.
As for the UKCS it is fantastic, and I really appreciate the work you and Greg have put in to setting it up. However, to me it is an annual competition rather than a ranking system, as every January points are reset. Maybe once you have another year of data you could include historic (depreciated) results similar to IFPA to give a ranking of all people who have played in the UK comps.
The problem I see with the new format is that it places way too much focus on number of entrants, up to 64, and games played by the winner, up to 25. It means that it is easy to abuse, by setting up a league, rather than the intention of making the big international comps woth more points. Maybe it could be based on the total games played by all competitors. By making it games played by the winner, it's easy to load the far end of the competition with best of 5 games to reach the target, whereas early rounds tend to fly by quickly eliminating lots of lesser players, thus deterring them from entering the comp in the first place. (I actually reversed this format in the Xmas Cracker last year, so the competition sped up as it went on, but at a cost of WPPR points).
I refuse to change the format of tournaments I run just to gain points, if that is to the detriment of the inclusiveness of the tournament. Ideally I try to have it so the worst player still plays over 50% of the games the winner plays. I think that all of the comps I've ran have been varied and fun for all of the players and more importantly have rewarded the players who have played best on the day by allowing them to advance deeper in the tournament, but that's not reflected in the points awarded compared to a league with 64 people in, over half of whom may only actually play 1 or 2 games.
As for the UKCS it is fantastic, and I really appreciate the work you and Greg have put in to setting it up. However, to me it is an annual competition rather than a ranking system, as every January points are reset. Maybe once you have another year of data you could include historic (depreciated) results similar to IFPA to give a ranking of all people who have played in the UK comps.
To expand upon this a bit further, I believed that one of the big plus's of the London Selfie League was the fact that anyone could come along and enter at any time during the 2 month period and would attract enough players to maximise the WPPR points. This has not been the case though, after 5 weeks there have been 30 players enter which is less than we used to get at 1 league meet. I can only conclude that the truth is that the get together and social aspect of the league meets was important to the majority of players rather than the points. If I was In a position to carry on the league meets it wouldn't be such a disappointment, but with the news yesterday that my application for a clubhouse was turned down (due to the lack of daily use) I certainly won't be able to carry on organising them.
Here's hoping that others will be able to do so, it'd be nice to just turn up for the fun element for a change
Here's hoping that others will be able to do so, it'd be nice to just turn up for the fun element for a change
Very sorry to hear Matt but do keep looking and don't give up on the dream...!
OP
OP
Absolutely gutted to hear it Matt, such a shame
I could do that but would have to reset prior years' points to the updated points system we're using for 2016 so that all results are comparable as we wouldn't want to suffer the same inconsistency as IFPA! However, I do have data going back to 2007 when we first started doing comps in the UK as for fun went back to see how UKCS would have looked in prior years. Can post here if I can dig it out if anyone is interested.
So yes could we set up a "UKCS" ranking based on several years although would need to consider exactly how it worked (depreciation and whether to include the leagues) and furthermore think we'd want to discuss and consider this a bit further before publishing anything semi official and setting up a ranking in parallel with IFPA. To be honest I'm not sure if that many people would be that bothered by a semi official UK rank anyway?
Before doing a tonne of work to improve the wprr system, why not ask the players at a large tournament like the UK open who actually values these points?
It strikes me that
By means of example mate john does not even own a machine. The 2015 uk open was his first knockout tournament, so he would have had no points at all. Fuelled by nicotine and caffeine he still knocked out the 2014 winner paul Jongma in the last 32 in a best of three game knockout stage. Paul is a much better player than John, Paul will doubtless have oodles of points. But that counted for nought on Scared Stiff and Stern Dracula.
It strikes me that
- Wprr points have very limited comparative value between geographies
- Coming up with a new parallel system could be loads of work, contentious and result in an equally flawed output
- The new points system might be disregarded by folk outside of the uk
By means of example mate john does not even own a machine. The 2015 uk open was his first knockout tournament, so he would have had no points at all. Fuelled by nicotine and caffeine he still knocked out the 2014 winner paul Jongma in the last 32 in a best of three game knockout stage. Paul is a much better player than John, Paul will doubtless have oodles of points. But that counted for nought on Scared Stiff and Stern Dracula.
OP
OP
