(An attempt at) The top 40 TPA players from leaderboard scores

[Mark W**a]

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) version, so that's how he racks up over 500 total.

I used log(500) for the one I posted because I thought (maybe incorrectly) that's the one you preferred. %-) Inspector42 is ranked #286 when using POINTS = max(0, 100 * (1 - log(RANK)/log(104.76))), and #348 with the exp function.

Sorry I suck with numbers.

What's going on with the second list? I am not understanding how some users, like yourself can go up 5 ranks yet I go from 30th to 87th? I'm behind a guy whose best scores are in the 30th-60th range, his Twilight Zone 64th place is listed as "a best" when my score of 52nd is, personally considered, one of my worst. How can I be "behind" someone whose best score is 30th place on a table?

 

[fromduc]

Mark, u got points on only 9 tables out of 45 or so, i think that explains a lot of things, when Invitro will take only the best 50% of tables u should have a better place here.

And about all the formulas, i think the log one that Erik proposed is far too severe (the exp one was already for me, if i had to chose on the numbers u gave i would take the power one, which is already givin a solid enough bonus to the top 10-5. Erik i can understand ur log formula would be better to determine who's the best between u and Anton, or maybe inside the top 5, but after for me it's just meaningless for everybody out of top 10. For u and maybe the 4-5 people who are really on top 10 everywhere it would be cool, but by definition u're only half a dozen to be in this case.

And again, i know i'm kind of the only one here to defend this line here, but for me a double 10th on 2 tables HAS to be rewarded better than a guy who is 1st on one table and far away on the second one. I dont understand why as Mark said a player who's present everywhere in top 50 would be seen as "he just had a lot of time to play all the tables" and why u would reaward better a guy who "played one table until death" to be 1st. I think the 50% of tables methode which will be implemented next time is far enough fair for this kind of people

 

[vikingerik]

I used log(500) for the one I posted because I thought (maybe incorrectly) that's the one you preferred.

Aha. I hadn't really thought about it, but yeah I do think I prefer the 500 method. Including more data deeper into the rankings can only help, plus that also reduces the spread at the high end between like #1 and #10. The downside is hurting players who haven't played many tables, which could be from purchasing or platform constraints.

But yes, Mark Wyda, there's your answer - lots of #150ish scores do accumulate to more than your small handful. Play more tables!

 

[Mark W**a]

Mark, u got points on only 9 tables out of 45 or so, i think that explains a lot of things, when Invitro will take only the best 50% of tables u should have a better place here.

And about all the formulas, i think the log one that Erik proposed is far too severe (the exp one was already for me, if i had to chose on the numbers u gave i would take the power one, which is already givin a solid enough bonus to the top 10-5. Erik i can understand ur log formula would be better to determine who's the best between u and Anton, or maybe inside the top 5, but after for me it's just meaningless for everybody out of top 10. For u and maybe the 4-5 people who are really on top 10 everywhere it would be cool, but by definition u're only half a dozen to be in this case.

And again, i know i'm kind of the only one here to defend this line here, but for me a double 10th on 2 tables HAS to be rewarded better than a guy who is 1st on one table and far away on the second one. I dont understand why as Mark said a player who's present everywhere in top 50 would be seen as "he just had a lot of time to play all the tables" and why u would reaward better a guy who "played one table until death" to be 1st. I think the 50% of tables methode which will be implemented next time is far enough fair for this kind of people

I did have a good place. 30th.

I thought the entire philosophy was to get away from people who have a lot of tables, vs. people who are highly skilled. That's what they originally said, now it's changed to support those who score on a bunch. So I guess I'll just have to spam away at a bunch of tables I don't care about to have a good ranking (if this becomes the new accepted method of tracking), and just wait until the remaining 25 tables show up on PS4.

Sorry but I'll never accept someone whose best score is only 30th place (not talking about you) as "better" than someone who can get consistent top 10's.

I'm 10 ranks below a person with these scores: #38 on Co1812, #44 on HighSpeed, #45 on BRose, #51 on FT according to the new ranking. Come on now.

 

[Mark W**a]

I'm not trying to sound salty. I have 35th on my mobile account BK2000, and 27th on T2. I intend to shatter those scores once they come out for PS4. So I'll be just fine but it's still, whatever.

 

[fromduc]

I thought the entire philosophy was to get away from people who have a lot of tables, vs. people who are highly skilled.

But why people who have a lot of tables wouldnt be highly skilled, and just chose to diversify their play? Thats what i dont get... I dont say i would have, but if i was playing all my time on 10 tables instead of 40, well i imagine i would have better scores on these tables, maybe not a 1st place but a couple of top 10 i imagine. I think skills are not that easy to evaluate, and not mentionning as Erik did tables where it's only a question of motivation (like SS where i'm pretty sure a ton of palyer including u or me could play really forever).

Of course if ur main device is PS4 u got a big disadvantage here, and thats why only 50% best perormance should de taken, and your rank, which is already nice, would be even better. And i 100% do agree with tou on the fact this guy u're 10 ranks below isnt better than u, but well with only 9 tables played, except if we only make a leaderboard where only top 10 have points, this will happen again.

PS: hope u know that even if i quoted you, this wasnt against u, eh... but anyway, even on PS4 u got 22 or 23 tables, why playin so few? I can guarantee you that tables i didnt really like at the beginnig have almost all their interest

 

[Mark W**a]

No method of ranking will ever be perfect.

However, it should most certainly not favor quantity over quality.

I really don't feel the need to ahem " compete" with guys scoring 40-50 spots below me on tables. I'm sorry but a rank of 40th or 50th on a table is mediocre in a list ranking the worlds best.

Twilight Zone is my weakest table, one I need a lot of improvement on and need to learn more about in order to get better on. I'm 52nd on it. Cirqus Voltaire is a table I've been trying to get better on. I'm 35th. Those are -ok- scores but extremely far from the top.

I understand that there should be a balance between skill and number of tables. There is something to be said for someone who is pretty good at nearly all tables. But there is also something to be said for someone who takes the time to master a table, versus just "paying to win", buying all the tables and playing the less popular ones to pad thier rank.

If I need to do that to "compete" then just forget it, and I ask that my name politely be removed from the ranks as I chose not to participate in a system like that.

 

[fromduc]

I understand that there should be a balance between skill and number of tables. There is something to be said for someone who is pretty good at nearly all tables. But there is also something to be said for someone who takes the time to master a table, versus just "paying to win", buying all the tables and playing the less popular ones to pad thier rank.

If I need to do that to "compete" then just forget it, and I ask that my name politely be removed from the ranks as I chose not to participate in a system like that.

Mark, this is not something official, just a good idea from Invitro, and i'm sure 99.9% of TPA player dont even know tihis ranking exists, so payin to win.... try the others tables, u'll see people play coz it's a pleasure.

 

[Mark W**a]

Mark, this is not something official, just a good idea from Invitro, and i'm sure 99.9% of TPA player dont even know tihis ranking exists, so payin to win.... try the others tables, u'll see people play coz it's a pleasure.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it favors people who own more tables. Directly contradicting the underlying philosophy that this was supposed to be based on. Figure's once I made my mark things would change completely...

The old ranking struck a balance between player's who were masters of just a few tables, vs. players who were good/very good at a lot of tables. In the old rank you were still above me, even though your best is 14th and my best is 1st. So the old system satisfied both sides.

Whereas the new system, should it be adopted, throws players like me under the bus. I dropped 57 places, behind a guy whose BEST score is lower than my WORST. That's just nonsensical. I don't need some list telling me I'm a "worse" player than some dude I can run circles around. Like I said count me out if that's the new direction.

BTW I am diverse, and I do play a lot of tables. 1 st, 2 top 5's, 1 top 10, 1 top 20, 1 top 40 and 4 top 50's. That's 10 tables. Not to mention the tables that aren't on PS4 yet.

 

[invitro]

Whereas the new system, should it be adopted, throws players like me under the bus. I dropped 57 places, behind a guy whose BEST score is lower than my WORST. That's just nonsensical. I don't need some list telling me I'm a "worse" player than some dude I can run circles around. Like I said count me out if that's the new direction.

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 .

 

[invitro]

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 >23 tables in the top 100. So I should've expected that this change would have very little effect (and maybe I realized this a few months ago and decided not to quickly implement it, or maybe not).

Anyway, it's in effect, and I won't post a new table of rankings, but I will list just the usernames:
#1 vikingerik, #2 AntonR, #3 Tarek Oberdieck, #4 Sir_Moovenstein, #5 Toolinit, #6 FALCO12-QUEBEC, #7 Space Tractor, #8 TOUGE_KILLER, #9 www.vpforums.org, #10 atoppachar, #11 maestroreese, #12 HUFMUF, #13 invitro, #14 dylan_h, #15 Howling_Goro, #16 Just this guy, #17 pinballchris, #18 Crusty Booger, #19 phoerber, #20 geohoo, #21 TRLBrony, #22 ChristofferB, #23 pinballwiz45b, #24 djchrille, #25 benika7, #26 Mark_Miwurdz, #27 vpalmer, #28 Fromduc, #29 Phreaker47, #30 NeonZwei, #31 PinHead970, #32 ostrich2, #33 Captain_Cockup, #34 efbelo, #35 moldygoat, #36 Lupo23, #37 Tripple I, #38 Jake Alt, #39 chk, #40 Nemesis041, #41 maezun, #42 DeeEff, #43 banane32, #44 CheesyBeefy88, #45 Nightmac21, #46 PieCES, #47 rockman_x_2002, #48 Chopin6868, #49 ParallaxScroll, #50 Jazza, #51 MT, #52 II-Squid-II, #53 kovalev1985, #54 ER777, #55 tuomas, #56 RIZ420_420_1, #57 Roy Wils, #58 LordEngi, #59 OmegaDef, #60 gooche77, #61 Benj341276, #62 siemas12345, #63 Caps_Lock420, #64 smbaydp, #65 sneeking, #66 Lordbobby, #67 tiotbellot, #68 ppeltola768, #69 wfusdfcfdedeji83, #70 kefran22, #71 Daniel Rone, #72 xNiCeGuYx, #73 ALOL997, #74 Mark_Miwurdz_US, #75 Actionball, #76 ThePinbugArcade, #77 Nelis Bakker, #78 pootV3, #79 krazysteve1958, #80 olivierarmy, #81 West_Tiger, #82 yoshida758do, #83 roma, #84 nikostos44, #85 switch3flip, #86 redflame2013, #87 bobo, #88 Eoner321, #89 WIP, #90 nuclearkevin, #91 FalconPain, #92 Dizzer2012, #93 evilryu007, #94 baelgor, #95 slam23, #96 CentralScrutnizr, #97 bach211i, #98 autoteo78, #99 Zoop25, #100 victorstulemeije.

 

[invitro]

Top 100, using IFPA/WPPR Ranking Points system

Hey, how about we use the PAPA ranking method? http://www.ifpapinball.com/ranking-info We can treat each table as a tournament of equal value, skipping that whole complicated section about Tournament Value Adjustment. Then the ranking uses the sum of a linear method through the entire population plus a power method for the top 32 players. Interested in that at all?

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 only one #1 score; that's 100 pts, and ~150 are needed. And from glancing at the bottom of the 100, players can still make it with a bunch of scores not even in the top 50. So I think this system is giving the "right" point value to all ranks. This is very good!

I will put the 2014-05-16 rankings at the end of this post for you folks to check. Here is some info first.

The instructions on the IFPA page for WPPR / Ranking Points (I don't know what to call it) are:

• Using the tournament base value and TVA from the RATING and RANKING strength indicators, calculate what the WPPR point value for the tournament winner.
• Two WPPR point distribution values are then calculated for the rest of the field of participants.

One is a linear distribution value based on the number of players in the tournament.

(PlayerCnt + 1 – Finishing Position) * 10/100 * (1st place value / playerCnt)

​

The second value is a dynamic distribution value using the top 32 players of a tournament.
​

(pow(( 1 – pow((( Finishing Position -1) / PlayerCnt),.7)),3)) * 90 /100 * (1st place value)

​

These two values are what a player earns for a given tournament.
​

I am using PlayerCnt = 500, so this many players get points, and a 1st place value of 100.

Here is how many points this makes several ranks worth (IFPA is the last column):
RANK | linear exp log power desired ifpa |
1 | 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 |
2 | 99.000 95.456 85.099 95.909 ? 78.162 |
4 | 97.000 86.979 70.198 88.199 ? 57.644 |
8 | 93.000 72.217 55.297 74.513 ? 35.138 |
10 | 91.000 65.803 50.500 68.453 70.000 28.164 |
20 | 81.000 41.333 35.599 44.556 ? 12.192 |
32 | 69.000 23.657 25.495 26.298 ? 9.381 |
33 | 68.000 22.582 24.833 25.152 ? 9.360 |
50 | 51.000 10.244 15.901 11.620 ? 9.020 |
100 | 1.000 1.002 1.000 1.000 1.000 8.020 |
250 | -149.000 0.001 -18.698 0.000 0.100 5.020 |
500 | -399.000 0.000 -33.599 0.000 0.010 0.020 |

I will note that they don't exactly match the values on the IFPA site. To check, I used the setup for Pinburgh 2014, and the numbers I calculated are a little different from what is given on the page with that tourney's results. I checked my formula and can't find a problem. Since I'm overloading with information anyway, here is my (Perl) code for the scoring function (and $NUM_SCORES_TO_RANK = 500):

sub rank2points {
my $rank = shift;
return 0 if $rank > $NUM_SCORES_TO_RANK;

my $first_place_value = 100;
return $first_place_value if $rank == 1;

my $player_cnt = $NUM_SCORES_TO_RANK; # the total number of players to score per table.
my $pts1 = $rank > $player_cnt ? 0
: ($player_cnt + 1 - $rank) * (10/100) * ($first_place_value / $player_cnt);

my $top_player_cnt = 32;
my $pts2 = $rank > 32 ? 0
: ((1 - (($rank - 1) / $top_player_cnt) ** 0.7) ** 3)
* 90/100 * $first_place_value;

return $pts1 + $pts2;
}

(I know there are redundancies in the code, they are there for safety/later modification . )

The cutoff at counting only 23 tables now has a big effect. Taking myself, for example, my 23rd-best rank is #45, which is 9.1 pts. I have 20 more tables ranked in the top 500, from #45 to #348, losing 144 of 497 points. This is good! It does mean the rankings may be sensitive to the number of 23.

Anyway, I am ranked #18 instead of #13, which seems better to me (it is probably still too high... my scores are really super ultra quantity over quality, even counting only half of them).

I favor this system the most, and am curious for any feedback. I think using IFPA's certainly time-tested method, and I know the people that run IFPA are very, very smart and wise guys, is a pretty big plus.

Well here are the rankings:

Rank (previous) Change	Username	Points	# of Top 10 Scores (previous)	# of Top 100 Scores (previous)	# of Top 500 Scores	Best Scores
1 (1) 0	vikingerik	1589	27 (29)	39 (38)	40	#1 on MB, #1 on Taxi, #1 on AFM, #1 on T2
2 (2) 0	Tarek Oberdieck	1568	19 (18)	20 (19)	21	#1 on BH, #1 on FH, #1 on Genie, #1 on DrDude
3 (3) 0	AntonR	1560	28 (17)	45 (44)	45	#1 on NGG, #1 on SpSh, #1 on Centaur, #1 on ElDor
4 (4) 0	Sir_Moovenstein	903	13 (13)	28 (25)	35	#1 on CV, #2 on AFM, #3 on ElDor, #4 on Genie
5 (5) 0	HUFMUF	721	7 (7)	17 (17)	26	#1 on HD3E, #1 on TeedOff, #1 on Co1812, #2 on TZ
6 (12) +6	Toolinit	656	8 (5)	40 (29)	44	#1 on Fl2000, #2 on HD3E, #3 on HighSpeed, #6 on DrDude
7 (6) -1	atoppachar	617	8 (8)	23 (23)	38	#2 on FT, #4 on Taxi, #4 on GoinNuts, #4 on BRose
8 (7) -1	FALCO12-QUEBEC	614	9 (11)	26 (26)	30	#1 on EatPM, #3 on RBioN, #4 on Centaur, #6 on CV
9 (8) -1	TOUGE_KILLER	609	9 (9)	29 (30)	38	#2 on DrDude, #3 on Firep, #3 on WWind, #4 on CBW
10 (10) 0	Howling_Goro	530	8 (8)	11 (11)	20	#2 on STTNG, #2 on Centaur, #2 on T2, #5 on BoP
Rank (previous) Change	Username	Points	# of Top 10 Scores (previous)	# of Top 100 Scores (previous)	# of Top 500 Scores	Best Scores
11 (9) -2	www.vpforums.org	530	8 (10)	16 (16)	16	#1 on STTNG, #4 on AFM, #5 on BH, #5 on Genie
12 (11) -1	Space Tractor	514	6 (7)	27 (29)	41	#3 on Pin*Bot, #5 on SpSh, #5 on FT, #5 on BRose
13 (13) 0	dylan_h	440	5 (4)	27 (27)	43	#3 on Co1812, #4 on DrDude, #7 on TeedOff, #7 on FT
14 (19) +5	phoerber	429	7 (6)	10 (8)	10	#2 on BK2K, #2 on HighSpeed, #3 on EatPM, #5 on CftBL
15 (17) +2	Just this guy	419	5 (4)	20 (17)	24	#3 on WD, #4 on HighSpeed, #6 on BRose, #9 on HD3E
16 (18) +2	maestroreese	391	4 (3)	34 (32)	43	#3 on DrDude, #9 on Genie, #9 on SpSh, #10 on CP
17 (16) -1	Crusty Booger	355	3 (4)	28 (28)	44	#5 on TeedOff, #8 on SpSh, #8 on Co1812, #11 on Victory
18 (14) -4	invitro	353	3 (3)	31 (32)	43	#4 on FH, #9 on AFM, #10 on MM, #11 on BH
19 (15) -4	pinballchris	351	3 (3)	28 (28)	42	#6 on ElDor, #7 on Co1812, #7 on CBW, #11 on NGG
20 (21) +1	geohoo	326	2 (4)	24 (23)	38	#6 on WWind, #9 on CC, #11 on FH, #12 on BK2K
Rank (previous) Change	Username	Points	# of Top 10 Scores (previous)	# of Top 100 Scores (previous)	# of Top 500 Scores	Best Scores
21 (189) +168	NeonZwei	324	4 (1)	7 (4)	9	#1 on BRose, #3 on AFM, #3 on FT, #6 on ToM
22 (22) 0	Phreaker47	316	5 (5)	6 (7)	15	#3 on Fl2000, #3 on HH, #5 on Taxi, #6 on BoP
23 (39) +16	ChristofferB	309	4 (2)	23 (19)	38	#9 on GoinNuts, #9 on WD, #9 on HighSpeed, #10 on Victory
24 (26) +2	TRLBrony	306	3 (2)	25 (25)	37	#6 on Co1812, #10 on Fl2000, #10 on HighSpeed, #15 on CBW
25 (24) -1	vpalmer	299	2 (4)	16 (16)	26	#7 on SpSh, #7 on Centaur, #11 on Genie, #12 on FT
26 (23) -3	pinballwiz45b	299	1 (4)	20 (17)	36	#9 on Victory, #11 on Co1812, #11 on FT, #13 on Pin*Bot
27 (30) +3	PinHead970	296	4 (4)	8 (8)	10	#1 on WWind, #5 on STTNG, #5 on Co1812, #7 on TZ
28 (25) -3	djchrille	296	3 (3)	13 (13)	23	#5 on T2, #7 on Victory, #10 on HD3E, #11 on BigShot
29 (20) -9	Jake Alt	295	3 (3)	10 (10)	30	#3 on BRose, #4 on WD, #7 on BK2K, #22 on CV
30 (27) -3	benika7	290	4 (4)	11 (12)	12	#3 on CV, #3 on MB, #7 on CC, #9 on TZ
Rank (previous) Change	Username	Points	# of Top 10 Scores (previous)	# of Top 100 Scores (previous)	# of Top 500 Scores	Best Scores
31 (28) -3	Mark_Miwurdz	287	5 (5)	9 (9)	13	#3 on BoP, #5 on RBioN, #7 on T2, #8 on FH
32 (29) -3	ostrich2	280	4 (4)	13 (13)	17	#2 on CC, #8 on MB, #8 on HD3E, #8 on NGG
33 (32) -1	Lupo23	264	3 (3)	5 (5)	6	#1 on CentPark, #2 on BK, #5 on Gorgar, #12 on GoinNuts
34 (33) -1	Chopin6868	259	2 (2)	12 (13)	23	#2 on WWind, #10 on Pin*Bot, #15 on HH, #19 on BoP
35 (34) -1	rockman_x_2002	254	2 (2)	12 (12)	31	#6 on GoinNuts, #6 on HH, #17 on Fl2000, #28 on Firep
36 (31) -5	chk	249	1 (1)	12 (14)	32	#7 on BRose, #12 on Fl2000, #15 on FH, #15 on BK2K
37 (83) +46	maezun	247	1 (2)	12 (8)	26	#8 on Pin*Bot, #11 on RBioN, #11 on ElDor, #17 on BRose
38 (35) -3	moldygoat	247	1 (1)	10 (12)	26	#6 on CP, #12 on WWater, #14 on BoP, #14 on WWind
39 (41) +2	krazysteve1958	246	2 (2)	6 (6)	22	#3 on FH, #5 on CBW, #52 on ElDor, #53 on HighSpeed
40 (38) -2	PieCES	242	1 (1)	17 (18)	31	#10 on Firep, #12 on BH, #12 on DrDude, #32 on CV
Rank (previous) Change	Username	Points	# of Top 10 Scores (previous)	# of Top 100 Scores (previous)	# of Top 500 Scores	Best Scores
41 (42) +1	efbelo	240	1 (2)	10 (10)	30	#10 on CBW, #11 on MB, #11 on T2, #15 on CentPark
42 (43) +1	RagingBull888	240	1 (1)	9 (6)	32	#2 on WD, #42 on HighSpeed, #69 on WWind, #70 on CentPark
43 (203) +160	Fromduc	239	0 (0)	20 (7)	31	#14 on SpSh, #14 on CBW, #17 on WWater, #17 on Pin*Bot
44 (37) -7	ER777	239	1 (1)	15 (11)	39	#5 on ElDor, #16 on CP, #19 on Genie, #25 on HH
45 (146) +101	Benj341276	239	2 (1)	10 (5)	29	#5 on CC, #6 on MB, #28 on WWater, #32 on Fl2000
46 (40) -6	CheesyBeefy88	238	1 (1)	18 (18)	34	#8 on BigShot, #15 on SpSh, #18 on CP, #18 on GoinNuts
47 (44) -3	siemas12345	232	2 (2)	6 (7)	19	#2 on SS, #9 on T2, #14 on HH, #42 on CC
48 (36) -12	Caps_Lock420	232	1 (1)	13 (13)	26	#4 on ElDor, #20 on WWind, #28 on BigShot, #33 on Centaur
49 (46) -3	Nemesis041	229	1 (1)	16 (15)	25	#8 on BK2K, #11 on WWater, #14 on HighSpeed, #26 on SS
50 (47) -3	smbaydp	227	2 (2)	12 (9)	40	#9 on Fl2000, #10 on ElDor, #20 on BigShot, #43 on Taxi
Rank (previous) Change	Username	Points	# of Top 10 Scores (previous)	# of Top 100 Scores (previous)	# of Top 500 Scores	Best Scores
51 (49) -2	Jazza	226	1 (1)	19 (13)	40	#9 on Firep, #20 on CentPark, #22 on CBW, #28 on TeedOff
52 (50) -2	banane32	223	4 (4)	4 (4)	4	#2 on NGG, #3 on MM, #5 on MB, #10 on SS
53 (67) +14	OmegaDef	220	2 (1)	8 (7)	16	#1 on CftBL, #9 on CP, #20 on Genie, #22 on RBioN
54 (45) -9	nikostos44	219	1 (1)	13 (13)	25	#3 on GoinNuts, #21 on Victory, #39 on SpSh, #47 on BoP
55 (53) -2	Tripple I	219	0 (0)	18 (16)	37	#16 on WWind, #17 on SpSh, #21 on CC, #21 on BRose
56 (48) -8	Nightmac21	218	0 (0)	18 (19)	36	#12 on TeedOff, #20 on CV, #24 on HD3E, #26 on CBW
57 (51) -6	kovalev1985	217	2 (2)	8 (9)	18	#2 on CV, #8 on Taxi, #19 on RBioN, #26 on Centaur
58 (4708) +4650	Captain_Cockup	216	2 (0)	12 (0)	16	#6 on FH, #7 on RBioN, #11 on STTNG, #18 on BH
59 (52) -7	II-Squid-II	214	1 (1)	8 (8)	13	#1 on RBioN, #11 on BoP, #15 on CV, #19 on MB
60 (60) 0	ppeltola768	213	1 (1)	13 (10)	32	#9 on NGG, #14 on Victory, #28 on BK2K, #34 on HighSpeed
Rank (previous) Change	Username	Points	# of Top 10 Scores (previous)	# of Top 100 Scores (previous)	# of Top 500 Scores	Best Scores
61 (55) -6	gooche77	213	1 (1)	14 (13)	29	#7 on Genie, #24 on Firep, #29 on ElDor, #29 on FT
62 (56) -6	MT	212	0 (0)	18 (18)	40	#14 on TeedOff, #20 on Firep, #23 on WWater, #26 on RBioN
63 (54) -9	DeeEff	209	0 (0)	14 (14)	39	#15 on WWind, #17 on Centaur, #21 on TeedOff, #22 on FH
64 (57) -7	LordEngi	202	1 (1)	12 (12)	27	#10 on HH, #13 on CBW, #19 on GoinNuts, #26 on Firep
65 (58) -7	victorstulemeije	202	0 (0)	15 (17)	34	#12 on HD3E, #25 on TeedOff, #36 on Victory, #48 on CV
66 (59) -7	slam23	193	0 (0)	15 (14)	35	#19 on ElDor, #33 on FT, #34 on Victory, #37 on MM
67 (63) -4	ryan	189	1 (1)	8 (7)	30	#8 on Victory, #35 on ElDor, #49 on TeedOff, #52 on Fl2000
68 (68) 0	Fungi	189	0 (0)	11 (11)	29	#15 on Firep, #16 on HighSpeed, #50 on SpSh, #50 on CBW
69 (62) -7	Vic Golf Chad	188	0 (0)	8 (10)	31	#14 on BK2K, #15 on TeedOff, #61 on Pin*Bot, #64 on SS
70 (61) -9	RIZ420_420_1	185	1 (2)	11 (11)	16	#5 on WWater, #11 on Pin*Bot, #21 on CP, #26 on CC
Rank (previous) Change	Username	Points	# of Top 10 Scores (previous)	# of Top 100 Scores (previous)	# of Top 500 Scores	Best Scores
71 (73) +2	pinbotwms	185	1 (1)	8 (5)	28	#9 on BRose, #20 on Fl2000, #33 on HighSpeed, #46 on Victory
72 (64) -8	xNiCeGuYx	184	0 (0)	13 (12)	31	#15 on WD, #19 on Centaur, #20 on BK2K, #24 on GoinNuts
73 (74) +1	Spud	179	1 (1)	4 (4)	18	#1 on CBW, #37 on BK2K, #47 on WD, #77 on T2
74 (66) -8	torstenkuchenbae	179	0 (0)	13 (14)	30	#23 on DrDude, #24 on WWater, #37 on Fl2000, #42 on HH
75 (80) +5	Blah	178	0 (0)	10 (11)	35	#21 on DrDude, #29 on Fl2000, #30 on CC, #41 on WWind
76 (71) -5	tinder	177	0 (0)	9 (10)	41	#13 on TeedOff, #40 on HD3E, #49 on AFM, #55 on SS
77 (72) -5	Zoop25	176	0 (0)	9 (8)	31	#14 on Co1812, #28 on CP, #28 on GoinNuts, #39 on Genie
78 (65) -13	switch3flip	173	1 (1)	8 (8)	21	#6 on Victory, #21 on FT, #31 on WWind, #37 on CP
79 (81) +2	Crazy Newt	172	0 (0)	13 (13)	28	#29 on HighSpeed, #30 on BRose, #32 on AFM, #42 on Pin*Bot
80 (79) -1	LUK	171	0 (0)	8 (8)	27	#13 on ElDor, #43 on CBW, #68 on Victory, #76 on BRose
Rank (previous) Change	Username	Points	# of Top 10 Scores (previous)	# of Top 100 Scores (previous)	# of Top 500 Scores	Best Scores
81 (77) -4	sneeking	171	2 (2)	9 (10)	17	#9 on Centaur, #10 on SpSh, #18 on Pin*Bot, #28 on Genie
82 (69) -13	ParallaxScroll	170	0 (0)	12 (12)	20	#17 on MM, #18 on CV, #19 on Gorgar, #24 on BigShot
83 (1138) +1055	Beatnik-Filmstar	170	1 (0)	9 (0)	24	#10 on Co1812, #33 on HH, #38 on FT, #41 on FH
84 (70) -14	tuomas	168	1 (1)	10 (11)	17	#6 on AFM, #22 on SpSh, #24 on BH, #25 on Firep
85 (--) *	West_Tiger	167	2 (--)	5 (--)	12	#2 on Firep, #6 on CentPark, #52 on HighSpeed, #63 on Gorgar
86 (78) -8	RZR	166	0 (1)	10 (10)	25	#11 on BK2K, #32 on WD, #42 on TZ, #56 on DrDude
87 (91) +4	mjohns	166	0 (0)	9 (8)	26	#38 on Co1812, #44 on HighSpeed, #45 on BRose, #51 on FT
88 (76) -12	Lordbobby	164	0 (0)	9 (10)	21	#12 on Co1812, #20 on SpSh, #25 on GoinNuts, #26 on Genie
89 (84) -5	harry82988	164	1 (1)	8 (7)	20	#5 on CP, #31 on TeedOff, #33 on CC, #49 on HD3E
90 (82) -8	kosacks	163	0 (0)	6 (6)	33	#25 on FT, #36 on TeedOff, #49 on Gorgar, #63 on Firep
Rank (previous) Change	Username	Points	# of Top 10 Scores (previous)	# of Top 100 Scores (previous)	# of Top 500 Scores	Best Scores
91 (75) -16	PrimeroIncognito	163	0 (1)	10 (10)	24	#11 on CP, #21 on Genie, #42 on GoinNuts, #58 on HD3E
92 (92) 0	Stonehedge16	161	0 (0)	7 (8)	27	#13 on BigShot, #19 on Pin*Bot, #50 on CentPark, #51 on GoinNuts
93 (101) +8	9u1d0	161	0 (0)	5 (3)	29	#13 on HH, #21 on BK2K, #26 on HighSpeed, #66 on TZ
94 (87) -7	carkid93	161	0 (0)	9 (9)	24	#16 on HH, #50 on GoinNuts, #52 on CP, #55 on WD
95 (85) -10	rehtroboi	161	0 (0)	6 (7)	29	#17 on Co1812, #48 on Victory, #49 on SpSh, #75 on FT
96 (557) +461	Gus	160	1 (0)	9 (4)	15	#3 on Victory, #27 on CBW, #33 on TeedOff, #59 on SpSh
97 (93) -4	kan	159	0 (0)	10 (10)	25	#25 on Co1812, #25 on HighSpeed, #30 on Fl2000, #30 on BK2K
98 (86) -12	Inspector42	159	0 (0)	6 (6)	30	#30 on ElDor, #32 on GoinNuts, #52 on Genie, #64 on TZ
99 (88) -11	nonojin	156	0 (0)	6 (6)	27	#22 on HD3E, #49 on Taxi, #57 on DrDude, #58 on Co1812
100 (89) -11	mrgamesmaster	155	0 (0)	5 (5)	26	#51 on FH, #65 on Firep, #68 on BK2K, #69 on TeedOff

 

[Mark Miwurdz]

Will you be working the 360 and One leaderboards into this list when they drop?

Looking forward to the day when leaderboards can be trusted instead of the multi-platform, corruptable mess we currently have. Achievements aswell.

 

[fromduc]

Well i read the formula comparison on 10# and 20# and i didn need more information: 1 top1 = more than 3 top 10 = 8.5 top 20, far far too severe, more than the worst u already test. Here u master 3 of the 47 tables and you're already 25th. This works maybe for PAPA whith shortest pools, but here u got maybe the greater indicator for finding who's mastering the game between Erik, Anton and Tarek, for the rest of us it's meaningless.

 

[invitro]

Will you be working the 360 and One leaderboards into this list when they drop?

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 the tables played much, much differently, and much easier, than on the PC. (I remember high scores on NGG and Gorgar being particularly easy, but also BK, and well really all of the tables.) I would be reluctant to do anything with a platform's leaderboards if I knew its tables were much easier than the PC's tables.

 

[invitro]

Well i read the formula comparison on 10# and 20# and i didn need more information: 1 top1 = more than 3 top 10 = 8.5 top 20, far far too severe, more than the worst u already test. Here u master 3 of the 47 tables and you're already 25th. This works maybe for PAPA whith shortest pools, but here u got maybe the greater indicator for finding who's mastering the game between Erik, Anton and Tarek, for the rest of us it's meaningless.

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.

 

[Pinballwiz45b]

Awww, man. Now it looks like I'm doing worse! And I already moved up some positions on a few games!

 

[Gus]

That is real close in the top 3! It would be cool if there was some way for the top 10 to duke it out in a tournament every 6 months or so. I would watch that

And I made top 100 on that list. Great motivation to shoot for some more top 100 scores Thanks for doing these lists Invitro!

 

[fromduc]

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.

So if u like specific example, to take the other one i gave, do u think it's normal that a guy who is 1st on a table and less than 100th on 7 others has a better rank than a one who is 20th on the 8 same tables? If yes i'm a bit surprised, as u were telling a couple of weeks ago u were thinking to change the formula because the exp formula was making too severes gaps, and now u like this PAPA's one which give very more severe gaps.

 

[invitro]

So if u like specific example, to take the other one i gave, do u think it's normal that a guy who is 1st on a table and less than 100th on 7 others has a better rank than a one who is 20th on the 8 same tables? If yes i'm a bit surprised, as u were telling a couple of weeks ago u were thinking to change the formula because the exp formula was making too severes gaps, and now u like this PAPA's one which give very more severe gaps.

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 sure if I agree or not.

The exp-formula top 100, with only a player's top 23 tables counted, is still my "official" one.

I will wait a few days for feedback before doing anything else. I think I might actually make a poll to choose between the methods. For each possible method (exp, log on 500 players, log on 100 players, linear, IFPA, maybe another if someone gives an explicit formula), I would post the top 100 as calculated by that method. But I would only give the ranks of the scores each player got, not their username. Then I would choose (probably) the method with the most votes. I suppose that with the poll sub-forum, it is ok to post such a limited-interest poll there .