Author Topic: Tourney results?  (Read 8760 times)

Offline Miracleman

  • Kingpin
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
  • Location: Orlando, FL
  • TOO HAPPY
Re: Tourney results?
« Reply #60 on: December 13, 2013, 06:00:59 PM »
John's place is gonna be the coolest place for tourneys!
It's like the Playboy Mansion for pinball!

S

Offline pinballcorpse

  • Kingpin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1422
Re: Tourney results?
« Reply #61 on: December 13, 2013, 08:03:04 PM »


Some have argued that qualifying plays should be limited for a flat fee. Then the tourney due to nature of pinball (it is not a game of 100% skill), begins to involve luck as a larger factor. In a one-and-done, even the world champion can have 3 house balls-what does that prove if the game is one-and-done?

This one-and-done (or 2-and-done) format is not really as much of a skill competition anymore and this will prevent the better players from travelling because it is a roll the dice festival. There will be some skill of course, but it is mitigated because the players are too restricted.

Some people try to solve that by saying have a lottery to determine when people play to avoid people waiting. Same problems, but now people are forced to play. Too much luck introduced when the idea is to test skill.


Pinball is skill AND luck.

Adapting on the fly (luck) is just as much 'skill' as hitting the same 8 shots over and over to get to a reward (mode).

SKILL + LUCK

They are inseparable.

I have been getting my butt kicked at some of the POPS events because of the 'one-and-done' formatting and have no problem with that.
 
Spencer

I agree skill and luck are both factors in pinball.

I also feel one-and-done at a local get together is quite a bit different than one-and-done for a Pinball title (shoele), WPPR points or money.
Losing with integrity is better than winning with arrogance.

Offline Baiter

  • Kingpin
  • *****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Tourney results?
« Reply #62 on: December 14, 2013, 03:50:32 PM »
After reading the SPF article on pinball news it was interesting to see his opinion was close to mine regarding the PAPA tournament format.

Since his article appears to have good tournament stats we have something a little more solid to go on.  Regarding qualifying games, he states 1500 plays, so assuming the games were busy all weekend that's the max plays possible in the tournament with 7 games, 75 plays per hour for the 20 hours of qualifying.  That would be less than 19 plays per person for the 81 participants. 

Regarding the prize pool, $5500 was collected for pay-per-play and $1000 contributed by PAPA for the $6500 total pot.  That same pot would be achieved with a $67 flat entry fee.  It's significantly less than the top qualifiers put in, and significantly more than the casual players put in.  I don't think participation would drop significantly with the flat fee considering Asylum tournaments tend to be flat $50 entry fees for less than half of the qualifying time they would receive for the 2-day SPF (8 vs 20 hours), and those see 40 players alone.  In other words, The Asylum draws many casual players without a problem with that fee, so the end result is little concern of the pot dropping in value with a fixed fee vs pay-per-play.

Quote from: The Article
The format of unlimited entries must surely put a lot of people off. It also reduces the chance of someone stepping up and qualifying based on a couple of good games. Personally I think this is bad. The whole appeal of playing against the top players is that you have a chance of beating them head-to-head, but if you know that they can go and have another dozen, or more games to try and beat your score then what’s the point?

If there was a limited number of entries allowed, or even just a single entry per table, the top players will still be there or thereabouts at the top of all the tournaments - that’s what makes them top players - but you’d also see more of the casual players in and around, which could in turn encourage others to enter and try. The obvious downside to this is little or no money generated from entries for big cash prizes. Would the ‘top players’ travel for such events?
...
Overall I certainly don’t regret entering the tournament and had a great time, but I’m not certain that I’d rush to enter another too soon, especially on a family holiday as it is a whole weekend of commitment in both time and money.

So Wayne's concern is primarily the time commitment to get as many qualifying games as other players to stay equal with them.  He is absolutely correct in that tournament participants are forced to completely ignore the show, because I saw no serious tournament player walking about, I had to sit in the tournament lines to chat with any of them, even the locals. 

I think Wayne's concern mirrors many of you in that limiting plays would limit the pot and reduce the incentive for big players to participate, but I think I did a fair job illustrating that limiting plays doesn't imply a limit to the prize pool at all.  In fact a pay-per-play tournament has a max number of plays itself, and thus a limited pot potential. 

With limited qualifiers, I believe we'd see even more strategy involved with tournament participants spending less time chopping wood and more time watching, and talking and deciding which game gives them their best chance with the limited plays they have.  They would spend more time playing games on the floor, talking to people, and generally participating in the show itself, and in the end the best players would still win, but that would encourage even more casual participation knowing there are equal qualifying chances. 

Would there still be the rush at the end of Saturday night?  Absolutely, people holding on to too many plays and jockying for qualifying spots better play quick and choose correctly else they lose their plays, and their chances for the big money!

Offline mECHsLAVE

  • Administrator
  • Kingpin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: Tourney results?
« Reply #63 on: December 21, 2013, 02:52:28 PM »
With limited qualifiers, I believe we'd see even more strategy involved with tournament participants spending less time chopping wood and more time watching, and talking and deciding which game gives them their best chance with the limited plays they have.  They would spend more time playing games on the floor, talking to people, and generally participating in the show itself, and in the end the best players would still win, but that would encourage even more casual participation knowing there are equal qualifying chances. 

Would there still be the rush at the end of Saturday night?  Absolutely, people holding on to too many plays and jockying for qualifying spots better play quick and choose correctly else they lose their plays, and their chances for the big money!

I agree with this!   I think it'd be more fun, and more conducive to enjoying the shows and the social pinball environment, as well as the added strategy of when to use your attempts.   The one and only downside is the pot lessens.   
-Jason

Saint Augustine, FL

Offline Baiter

  • Kingpin
  • *****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Tourney results?
« Reply #64 on: December 21, 2013, 03:20:04 PM »
No reason the pot will lessen.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk


Offline pinballcorpse

  • Kingpin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1422
Re: Tourney results?
« Reply #65 on: December 21, 2013, 08:48:22 PM »
I don't understand the repeated concerns about time or money commitments that I read. Nobody is required to invest gobs of time or money to compete.

Many of these topics were discussed in the Pinball Tourney 101 seminar Brian D. and I presented and I have posted these ideas online in other threads. I will gladly share some basic ideas again:

1) $20 will buy a complete entry in basically every composite (Herb) style tourney (Even the latest SPF with 7 games-no player had to play all 7 games since only 5 counted)

2) In our typical 3/$10 unlimited pay to play system, absolutely nobody is required to pay more than $20 in order to play a full entry, get WPPR points and have a chance to qualify and even place.

3) Tourney lines are slowest at the beginning of the show, longest the last 2 hours of qualifying. The beginning of the show is the time to play if not waiting is preferred.

4) In 20 hours of qualifying over 2 days at a weekend event, there is more than enough time to enjoy some of every aspect of the show.  It will be virtually impossible to play every game in the hall once, attend every seminar, socialize, eat, rest etc. The weekend flies by. Spend the time how you choose to.

5) Don't worry about people trying to buy their way in to a tourney. Let them try. Just because they spend lots of money does not mean you need to. Play the best you can within your budget.

Most importantly:

6) HAVE FUN PLAYING PINBALL!

Jeff
Losing with integrity is better than winning with arrogance.

Offline Baiter

  • Kingpin
  • *****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Tourney results?
« Reply #66 on: December 23, 2013, 02:09:58 AM »
Personally, my only concern is to have even qualifying attempts among participants like every other sport or competition.  All the other related topics are interesting but considering most of them will be automatically addressed with even qualifiers, they are distant secondary concerns.

Offline Miracleman

  • Kingpin
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
  • Location: Orlando, FL
  • TOO HAPPY
Re: Tourney results?
« Reply #67 on: December 25, 2013, 08:36:06 PM »
The "$20 is all you need to spend for big tourney" line is not realistic.
Not even the big boys from out of town are only gonna spend $20

Offline pinballcorpse

  • Kingpin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1422
Re: Tourney results?
« Reply #68 on: December 25, 2013, 09:08:07 PM »
The "$20 is all you need to spend for big tourney" line is not realistic.
Not even the big boys from out of town are only gonna spend $20

In all fairness, if you are referring to what I have been posting, this is taking what I said out of context.

I can't keep track of everything I post and where I post it but my philosophy on this issue has not waivered. 

Here is an excerpt of mine from another forum:

In a pay to play format, the cost is whatever one wants it to be.  In most of our Florida tourneys,  $20 is typically sufficient to buy one complete entry (5 games for the round plus 1 more game for a “retry”).   Additional entries are up to the player, but that one $20 entry will provide a ranking against all other players for that tourney. It is possible that one entry will be enough to make the final 16!

In some cases like the recent Point Monsters tourney at the Asylum, a flat entry fee of $50 allowed for unlimited tries in the bank of 5 games.

In general, at a pay to play tourney with an entry structure of 3 games for $10, a player should estimate that it is probably going to cost about $80-$100 in entries (this equates to 24-30 plays spread across 5 games as desired) to learn the games and determine if it is worth trying to play to improve his score on one or more games.  Some players will qualify faster with fewer entries, some will require many more.  If someone wants to spend $20 or $200, that is up to them.  All entries help build the pot.

End excerpt

Edit: I added the above excerpt for reference.
Losing with integrity is better than winning with arrogance.

 

anything