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

[vikingerik]

I'm not sure I was really making a serious suggestion, just kind of thinking out loud. Really I'm trying to resolve this: the difference between the #1 and #5 slots represents a serious interval of skill on many tables (certainly any with limited EBs like Ripley's), but on some tables represents nothing but the willingness to sink more time. But any method of leaderboard rankings treats all such intervals as equal.

A score threshold like 1B on Funhouse isn't really the right way to do it. Demonstrating that one can go infinite isn't based on score or time. Going infinite is really based on the relative rates between earning EBs and draining balls, not on any score threshold. But you can't get that from the leaderboards.

As for how many players can, fromduc (hi, welcome!) makes a good point that the scores on the boards don't reflect everyone capable, since not everyone cares to sink the time to prove it. I'd bet at least 10 players could hit 1B on Funhouse if they seriously tried. Hard to back this up with any real reasoning though, I know.

 

[JPelter]

I don't even know what this is about, but I've definitely drained up a ton of games after sinking a number of hours in. I can't stop and come back another day when playing on the PC or a console since there's no saving, and eventually it just gets too tiring or boring. This is highly dependent on the table, but in the marathon tables I consider the leaderboard more of a sign of tenacity than playing skill till they come up with a no EB mode.

 

[fromduc]

Even without going to 0 EB or a second leaderboard, IMO a 3EB limit like we got in HD would be perfect, no too long marathons for hardcore player, and a correct amusement for all the others. And like in HD with the video game, give a good points reward instead of EB when u already had 3.

 

[JPelter]

Even without going to 0 EB or a second leaderboard, IMO a 3EB limit like we got in HD would be perfect, no too long marathons for hardcore player, and a correct amusement for all the others. And like in HD with the video game, give a good points reward instead of EB when u already had 3.

Personally I think they should keep the default to use the factory settings on tables like I assume it's currently set up. It's the most true to life. A three extra ball limit seems pretty arbitrary and impacts a variety of tables in different ways. You could still probably bang Ripley and TZ till the cows come home, and have way too long games on a few others too with three EBs, while something like Genie or Big Shot don't really need any extra ball limiters at all. Adjustments to table difficulty should really be a separate game mode entirely.

 

[Tann]

Adjustments to table difficulty should really be a separate game mode entirely.

+1.

It would be the most legitimate way to add difficulty equally to all tables: tournament settings aka "no extra ball", in a separate game mode/leaderboard.

But if it's too much work to implement, a limit to three extra balls would be a good solution too (not necessarily on all tables, e.g. HD, on which the extra ball limit works perfectly, but not on EM tables).

 

[Mark W**a]

Here's my full stats:

Gamertag: NeonZwei

Twilight Zone : 52nd

Medieval Madness: 17th

Theatre of Magic: 7th
Fish Tales: 3rd
Attack from Mars: 3rd
Black Rose: 1st

So 531 points. Black Rose is new today.

 

[Mark W**a]

Can we get an update on this?

 

[Storm Chaser]

Very interesting. I typically target the following, in this order:

1. Goals
2. Factory set high scores
3. PHoF-points
4. Leaderboard - basically because on my iPad1 I can't access them without crashing the app.

Still got a pretty decent scores on both counts but it's kind of annoying as well that quite a few of my best scores (like 20B on ToM, 120M on Victor) wasn't posted due to either bugs or the fact that I was playing offline. But I guess that is the same for everyone playing on iOS and the bug-related stuff is the same for everyone.

It would be interesting to see a division in subsets of platforms, despite the fact that it is most likely impossible. I expect it to be a huge difference in playing on consoles (easier) than on iOS like my iPad1, where the graphics sometimes "skips a beat" (once in a while the ball accelerates passed the flipper and drains. ) Also, I assume the nudging to be way easier on consoles!

iOS/android, on the other hand has the added benefit of being playable at all times so I assume we who play on iOS play more games, and thus get good scores just out of probabilistic reasons.

 

[invitro]

Can we get an update on this?

I am planning to post new rankings every four weeks. So I'll do one on or around May 16.

 

[fromduc]

Here is a new Top 100. I got the data today (2014-04-18; the previous data is for 2014-03-21). I am still considering these scoring changes:

- To count a max of half the total # of tables, to be more fair to players on platforms that don't have all the tables yet, and to players who dislike a few tables enough to not be willing to play them.
- To change my point formula again, as I think the exp decay may be too severe.

Firstable, tx for the work, i cant wait for the next update, where i hope i should appear now that i bught season 2, even if with this formula, whithout any top 10 i guees this should be the bottom of the leaderboard

But i got to say i agree on your last point, if i really understood ur formula: the exp decay is far too severe, i'm not that good at mathematical to judge it about the top 100, but where is the point to take the top 500 instead of the top 100 if there's only 1 point of difference between #500 and #100? I think that's the worst point of the formula, either u just take the top 100 (that could be a choice, not mine) either if you take the top 500 u got to value differences between the "non top player" at least a little bit. Why not takin a 500 points base instead of 100pts, whith of course a good bonus for the very tops players.

And second point: i think tables most played (ie season 1) should be more valued than the others: as i said i just bbought the season 2, and on many tables i reached top 50 or even top 20 on my 2nd game, sometimes whithout reading rules. Of course i improved my play compared to when i discovered s1 tables, but even with that top scores are easyer to do for me on s2 tables i play for a week than on most of s1 ones i play for months, dont think it's a coincidence.

My point of view

 

[Mark W**a]

I don't think it's fair to give someone, well, anything for a score that's outside the top 100. Because basically what that does is reward people who just have more tables, vs highly skilled players.

For instance, if you gave out 500 points for first, and 1 point for 499th place, then someone who is ranked 1st in the world on a table, would be equal to someone who is placed 250th in the world on 2 tables.

Also a big thank you to the dude who compiles this for us. It's much appreciated.

 

[fromduc]

Anyone can get top 500. I don't think it's fair to give someone, well, anything for a score that's outside the top 100. Because basically what that does is reward people who just have more tables, vs highly skilled players.

For instance, if you gave out 500 points for first, and 1 point for 499th place, then someone who is ranked 1st in the world on a table, would be equal to someone who is placed 250th in the world on 2 tables.

Sorry, I mean they would be ranked below that person.

So do you see why that would be bad?

Well i agree, of course i dont say that 1st should 500pts, 2nd 499... 500th 1 point; but between this way and the way where 100th = 1pt 500th = 0.001pt, there should be a median way... sry for my english

IMO, when i was learning to play on season one, top 500 didnt really mean anything, i had the feeling that the 1st big step was top 300, but on most of the tables being top 300 is not that easy, if u dont have super skills u dont do it on a couple of games. I'm in a kind of challenge with a friend of mine, Benj341276, which is top 10 on CC and MB, we're not that bad but believe me on many tables reaching top 300 was already a good challenge. And for me on this kind of leaderboard, even if top perf got to be rewarded at its right value, regularity should be a little bit taken in account too

Just my point of view, but yours is totally understandable. And i dont think it because of my personnals rankings, for now we got a kind of gentlemen agreement with my friend, we almost never replay a table until the other one beat our score, avoiding to "kill" a table too early, but sooner or later i gonna work those top tens ;p

 

[Mark W**a]

Here's the thing though fromduc;

There's a HUGE gap between skill levels even within the top 100. Hell, on some tables, there's a huge gap between 1st and 2nd.

Most tables look like this: Top 100 is, say, 10 billion. So 99th is like 10.2 billion. 95th is 10.4 billion. So on and so forth. Then you get to the top 20, and the guy who is 20th is 4 billion higher than the guy whose 19th. The guy above him is 3 billion on top of that. Then it starts to get crazy, 5th place is double 6th, and 1st place is double him. What I'm getting at, is that there's a clear gap in skill, sometimes between 2 or 3 guys, sometimes between 5, sometimes between just 2, or sometimes a guy is in a class all his own.

I think the OP is already being generous. Being 50th is nowhere near being 1st on any table. Yet if I'm 50th on two tables, I'm "as good" as the #1 guy in Twilight Zone. Yet, I'm nowhere near as good. You follow? If anything it should be skewed -the other way-, what you're suggesting would just make things worse.

Vikingeric who is #1 on this list said himself, humbly, that "such and such is a better player. I just play more tables, he deserves #1 spot". And I totally agree with his stance. I have way more respect for the dude who holds #1 on 3 tables than the guy whose 50th on every table in the game.

BTW I'm not suggesting he change it. I think the current way it's set up strikes a good balance between super skilled players, and giving everyone a shot so to speak. The current leaderboard isn't all that much different from the pinball leaderboards themselves. He's done a great job with it.

Not to mention, stretching it past 100 would also be a ton more work, what he does is a ton of work as is!

 

[vikingerik]

Then it starts to get crazy, 5th place is double 6th, and 1st place is double him. What I'm getting at, is that there's a clear gap in skill, sometimes between 2 or 3 guys, sometimes between 5, sometimes between just 2, or sometimes a guy is in a class all his own.

This varies extremely wildly by table. Terminator 2 is my go-to example. I have #1 and over double the #2 score, but I'm not twice as good at all. That table is pretty easy to go infinite with EBs, so all that means is I sank twice as much time into it as the other guy. We're equal in skill, at the max that the table can realize.

But on some tables, particularly anything with limited extra balls, big gaps at the high end are quite significant. The #1 score on Central Park is triple mine and I have absolutely no idea how to get there.

There's really no way to glean that from the leaderboard data alone though, you'd need to know the characteristics of each table and _how_ the top players got their scores.

 

[Mark W**a]

This varies extremely wildly by table. Terminator 2 is my go-to example. I have #1 and over double the #2 score, but I'm not twice as good at all. That table is pretty easy to go infinite with EBs, so all that means is I sank twice as much time into it as the other guy. We're equal in skill, at the max that the table can realize.

But on some tables, particularly anything with limited extra balls, big gaps at the high end are quite significant. The #1 score on Central Park is triple mine and I have absolutely no idea how to get there.

There's really no way to glean that from the leaderboard data alone though, you'd need to know the characteristics of each table and _how_ the top players got their scores.

That's a great point.

Just take Twilight Zone. The top 5 players, you included, all have above 100 billion. You're saying you're all equally skilled, it just came down to who has the most endurance, time etc. Which I get. My point though is that there is a clear distinction between you guys, and the guy who is at 10th with only 36 billion.

I worked my butt off in Theatre of Magic, and I don't know if it's EB repeatable, all I know is I got to 7th not knowing that, and also botching my only chance at an EB through the video mode.

You're right though, some tables are repeatable and some aren't. For those that are, it comes down to time-sink, which I'm not a fan of. It's why I'm happier with my 3rd place in AFM than my 1st in Black Rose.

Sorry for all the edits lol. I'm a writer so I'm always erasing and re-writing things until I'm happy with the post, paragraph, chapter what have you.

 

[Mark W**a]

hey fromduc, I hope I didn't come off as an elitist *******. **** it, if someone want's to do a top 500, I say go for it. Whatever makes them happy. It's just pinball, it's about fun.

 

[fromduc]

hey fromduc, I hope I didn't come off as an elitist *******. **** it, if someone want's to do a top 500, I say go for it. Whatever makes them happy. It's just pinball, it's about fun.

Dont worry dude, i like the talk and i dont do this kind of process

Anyway i got ur point but i'm not on your line: to focus only on top 10, as the elitist u are ( m^o^m ), i'm more impressed by people who got 10 or 20 top ten than for a guy who's only 1st on 2 tables he mastered after hundred hours of play and who is only 200th-300th on a dozen of other tables.

 

[Mark W**a]

Dont worry dude, i like the talk and i dont do this kind of process

Anyway i got ur point but i'm not on your line: to focus only on top 10, as the elitist u are ( m^o^m ), i'm more impressed by people who got 10 or 20 top ten than for a guy who's only 1st on 2 tables he mastered after hundred hours of play and who is only 200th-300th on a dozen of other tables.

Now that I've mastered pinball the next stop is the White House. Then interstellar ambasoder for the people's republic of earth. Then an alien rock star. Followed by a brief stint in Pleadies Hollywood as a leading alien "teen" heart throb (in alien years 30s are considered teen).

After that I'm coming for the papa championship belt . That's when it gets serious.

 

[fromduc]

Well i knew that... at least the 1st line ^^

 

[Pinballwiz45b]

Refreshing the leaderboards today?