Search results

Central Park seems just random to me, but I haven't played it much. I don't consider it to be lots of fun, but more fun than at least Big Shot and HD. Thanks for the EM list, I will look at those on IPDB.

I think Big Shot is highly rated on this forum. I believe there is a poll somewhere that could be checked. I find playing it to be dreadfully boring. But I'm just having a little poke at it. I played Slick Chick a lot on that PC sim that had it... Microsoft Pinball, maybe? Some program with...

Yes it does! If it is desired, anyway. I don't know if that Ph.D. is required... there are numerical methods that can solve these things easily and quickly, if the equations have certain properties. The work is in checking that they do. I am not interested in doing that. I don't plan to...

Big Shot.

I've done this, and I think the list is very interesting. I expected, maybe, for the best/most-famous tables, TZ / STTNG / AFM, to be on top, and TotAN to be at the bottom, and the least popular tables like Central Park / Victory / Big Shot to be at the bottom. Well, that's not the case...

Here is another idea I am comtemplating. I might sometime, I don't know when but probably not soon, decide to make high scores on different tables be worth different amounts. Like, a #10 score on a table whose top 100 scores include 40 of the top 100 players, would be worth more than a #10...

I think this example should be 20th on 7 (not 8) tables :). Ok, no, I agree that 20th on 7 tables should ranked higher than 1st on 1 table, well, maybe. If both players already have several top-30 scores, then adding a #1 score seems better than adding seven #20 scores. So actually, I'm not...

I have bought Pro each time I bought a Season Pass. I don't think I've used it. Well, I have used custom balls quite a bit since discovering that they can make detecting the ball easier, but I don't know if that's part of Pro. I actually don't know what's in Pro. I watched a bit of the video...

Well, I suppose I disagree: I think that three #1's -should- be worth a #25 ranking. I'm glad you gave a specific example though, as we can debate it. Also, the IFPA tournaments are not necessarily small; the Pinburgh 2014 had 400 players who are ranked and got these WPPR points.

It's unlikely, assuming they will again have their own leaderboards. For one thing, I doubt Farsight will make those leaderboards available via web, meaning I won't be able to get the data with a program. For another, I played on xbox360 for a few months, before the game came out on PC, and...

Top 100, using IFPA/WPPR Ranking Points system Ok, I have looked at this method, and I like it. The rankings seem to make sense. When awarding points for ranks on a table, there is a severe downward slope from ranks #1 to about #20. This is good! But a player cannot get in the top 100 with...

I have implemented the limit of a max of 23 tables scored per person (the 23 is half of 46, the total # of tables). There is almost no change in rankings, although the point total has gone down (the max point total is now 23 * 100 = 2300) for several players. Well, I counted 11 players who had...

Hey, I put that log formula top 100 up just as a trial and for comparison. The exp formula one, the first one I posted on 2014-05-16, where you are #30, that is the "real" one. I am listening to all feedback, and will try to pick a good "final" formula, and do it tonight :).

I originally said "no way" to this, and I still feel that way, except... I saw one Future Pinball (?) table on youtube that had like a hundred drop targets in the center, that raised up in different patterns, and it looked awesome. I really wanted to play a nice version of it. So I would be OK...

I haven't implemented anything to limit the # of tables a player gets points for, yet; I will try to look at that and the IFPA system tonight or this afternoon. :)

The log method in the table uses POINTS = 100 * (1 - log(RANK)/log(500)), instead of having the log(104.76) from the earlier table. This pegs #500 to 0 points; the other pegs #100 to 1 point. Inspector42 has lots of scores in the #101-500 range, and #154 is worth 19 points with the log(500)...

I can't find an error. Here are the points the exp formula gives you per table (before hackers are skipped): BRose: #1 -> 100.0 AFM: #3 -> 91.1 FT: #3 -> 91.1 ToM: #6 -> 79.3 MM: #18 -> 45.4 CV: #35 -> 20.6 TZ: #51 -> 9.8 STTNG: #108 -> 0.7 BoP: #164 -> 0.1 total points: 438.0 (The table says...

Well, I suppose this would work too. I have a hard time feeling certain of much beyond that the fully-linear method is no good. I suppose I am enjoying trying to find the "right" method, and I also feel an obligation to get it right, such that I am ok with it and you folks are ok with it too...

Good question. I did it so I could compare it with the linear function. And I made it 1 rather than 0 to leave room for fractional points for ranks #101-500. I don't know if it was a good thing to do. I don't think the log function is any more natural than the exp one. Actually I think...

Here is the top 100 using a log function for scoring ranks. To be specific, it uses POINTS = 100 * (1 - log(RANK)/log(500)) I have not looked at the differences between these rankings and the ones for the exp function, except for my own, and I think that #7 for me is just too high, and the...