Request My proposed changes to Tournament mode

[shutyertrap]

I like the "risk/reward" model as I'll call it, but I think Sean mentioned it as the PAPA way of doing things.

No extra balls, tables are set to tournament settings.

Your score is a combination of one play through of all tables in tourney.

Should you decide to try and improve your score, you'd do so by playing all the tables once more.

Whatever your most recent score earned is, that is the one that gets posted.

It's that last point that I think would really prevent the 'grinding' nature of a tourney. You might have this fantastic score on one table, and the question is do you maybe sacrifice it in hopes of bettering the scores on some other tables? Once you play a table, have it greyed out so you know what tables are still left to play.

I don't like the suggestion of one and done for the tourney, as I find my passion for playing really has heated up this past week. I'm playing tables I almost never touch, and were it one a done, I'd have touched them that once and they'd go back into the pile for me. We'll have to see how it goes, but whatever the case, I am having fun. I also have reached the point of diminishing returns though, where improving my score on a table results in only a few tenths of a point increase in the tourney.

 

[smbhax]

However, I don't think one and done is a fair system either.

Why not? Isn't that how the finals of most real tournaments work?

Someone else already suggested this somewhere, but have the system set up so you can play through the bank as many times as you want, but you have to go through the entire bank and accept or fail the entire bank's score for each run.

Knowing myself, I would still feel like I had to grind that, and it would just be way more frustrating!

 

[JPelter]

Can't pause a real machine either, the absolute main focus is to prevent these grind-fests, allowing the user to pause just encourages it.

The game is nothing like a real pinball machine. Forcing no pauses won't prevent the grind-fests, it'll just make people miserable while playing and make them take their breaks during after lock/after ball plunges. I don't think think FS should implement stuff that doesn't really make it more fun for anyone.

The problem here is that while there are no pauses for real tables either, TPA is so much easier than a real table the potential game lengths go through the roof compared to even top pinball pros playing on real tables.

 

[Baron Rubik]

I hardly ever play TZ or any of the earlier TPA DMD era tables out of tournament, simply because 1 game can last well over an hour.

If you had to play all tables in one hit, that could take the best part of a day.
That would be worse than the current tournament.

1 game per table, per player, no extra balls, 5 tables max in tourney - then I'd participate.

 

[JPelter]

I hardly ever play TZ or any of the earlier TPA DMD era tables out of tournament, simply because 1 game can last well over an hour.

If you had to play all tables in one hit, that could take the best part of a day.
That would be worse than the current tournament.

1 game per table, per player, no extra balls, 5 tables max in tourney - then I'd participate.

I assume in both proposals so far you'd be able to save the game between tables and come back later.

 

[Baron Rubik]

I assume in both proposals so far you'd be able to save the game between tables and come back later.

I'd say the best way would be to have your score saved after each table play - like current.

 

[Sean DonCarlos]

Can't pause a real machine either, the absolute main focus is to prevent these grind-fests, allowing the user to pause just encourages it.

Actually, if the real machine in question is a Twilight Zone with the 9.4H ROMs, you can pause it. Cradle the ball on the flipper and press the extra ball button. The music should stop. Let go of the flipper, and the machine will maintain the cradle on its own for up to 15 minutes. When ready to resume, press the extra ball button again to release the flippers.

I like the "risk/reward" model as I'll call it, but I think Sean mentioned it as the PAPA way of doing things.

No extra balls, tables are set to tournament settings.

Your score is a combination of one play through of all tables in tourney.

Should you decide to try and improve your score, you'd do so by playing all the tables once more.

Whatever your most recent score earned is, that is the one that gets posted.

Actually, that last sentence is not what I had in mind, and not how PAPA does it, either. PAPA allows a player to "void" their entry at any time up until they hand it to the scorekeeper, and so I'd allow TPA players to abandon a run as well, either during play or right afterwards. For example: You have 3 bad games in your first 3 tables and you know this run is going to have a lousy final score. In PAPA qualifying, you can abandon such a run and start a new run without penalty (besides the cost of a new entry).

What PAPA relies on is that a player of lesser skill might get lucky in 1 game, or maybe 2, but he's not going to get lucky 5 games in a row. So even if that player has a vast pocketbook and effectively unlimited attempts, he's not going to be able to grind his way to the top. Conversely, players of greater skill might have a bad run or two at first, but they will be able to put together a string of decent games at some point during the tournament. So everyone eventually ends up where they ought to be, even with unlimited play.

On TPA, with its 8-game tournaments, a better player will probably manage 6 or 7 decent games and 1 or 2 clunkers. The less-skilled player faces even longer odds than at PAPA, as he needs to get lucky 6 times just to compete at all.

So with this arrangement, you can (mostly) satisfy all parties:

• Players with little free time can still compete, knowing that it is unlikely they will be eclipsed by a lower-skill player with lots of free time, and also knowing that a bad first or second run won't lock them out of contention.
• Players with lots of free time can enjoy the tournament as much as they like, without gaining an unfair advantage by doing so, and without worrying that any good effort they put forth previously will be risked if their next run turns out bad.

TL;DR Edition: You can allow players unlimited attempts so long as the tournament is in a run-based format, and even allow them to freely choose at the end of each run whether to keep their previous score or accept the new run's score, and at the end they will still wind up about where they should be ranked in terms of their skill.

 

[Carl Spiby]

Actually, if the real machine in question is a Twilight Zone with the 9.4H ROMs, you can pause it. Cradle the ball on the flipper and press the extra ball button. The music should stop. Let go of the flipper, and the machine will maintain the cradle on its own for up to 15 minutes. When ready to resume, press the extra ball button again to release the flippers.

I knew someone would bring that up

 

[Sean DonCarlos]

I knew someone would bring that up

And you knew it would be me!

 

[shutyertrap]

Thanks for the clarification Sean. And I like how that all sounds. Hopefully when FarSight has said they want to institute "PAPA rules", this will be included.

 

[smbhax]

On TPA, with its 8-game tournaments, a better player will probably manage 6 or 7 decent games and 1 or 2 clunkers. The less-skilled player faces even longer odds than at PAPA, as he needs to get lucky 6 times just to compete at all.

That being the case, why do you maintain that unlimited attempts are still necessary? If it's to allow skilled players to sort themselves out more precisely in order of skill, this will still come down to those with more spare time in that tournament period having a significant advantage. I mean, say you have players A and B, with nearly similar skill levels; A has time for one run-through, B has time for ten--A stands maybe a one-in-ten chance of winning based on play time, so how are you going to get a clear picture of their real skill level out of that?

A tournament does not determine skill level. It determines who performed the best at that particular period of time under those particular conditions; when someone wins PAPA or some other tournament, they don't say "I'm the best," they say "I somehow managed to win that tournament over all the other great players who were there! Sweet!" If you want a bigger picture of relative skill level you look at accumulated wins over time, ie--in real-world pinball competition--the IFPA ranking.

If FarSight intend to stick close to PAPA rules I hope they follow the Finals rules (one play-through of a series of tables) rather than the rules you've been describing, which are for Qualifying. In TPA we have no need of a Qualifying round because we don't have to narrow the field in order to fit players into a fixed number of physical tables at a fixed time.

I don't like the suggestion of one and done for the tourney, as I find my passion for playing really has heated up this past week. I'm playing tables I almost never touch, and were it one a done, I'd have touched them that once and they'd go back into the pile for me. We'll have to see how it goes, but whatever the case, I am having fun.

Actually, if it was one and done, and you had a lot of time, you'd more likely spend a good deal of time immediately beforehand practicing a given table outside of the tournament. (And yeah this does give an advantage to those with more time, although not nearly as much as unlimited tournament play would.) It is a good point though that the desire to stay high in the ranking can keep pulling you back in to put up a bigger score, and this can be fun, even for those who maybe can only get an additional game or two in here and there.

So eh really I think there's a decent argument to be made for having both Qualifying and Finals types of tournaments, as they kind of test different things and provide a different type of challenge. As someone with not always a great deal of time I think in general I would prefer a Finals-style tournament, but I can at least play the Qualifying-style in a limited way and get some measure of satisfaction out of placing semi-decently despite being short on time.

 

[Baron Rubik]

I love the idea of one shot all or nothing!

And it's gone midnight on Friday so I've had a few cheeky Vimto's now.

Just been watching a bad bloke movie 'Tokyo Drift' and I've gotten all pumped up on testosterone, winner takes all, loser ****s off elsewhere, and embarrasses Asian uncle.

How's about a tournament where we play for Forum membership?

Two walk in - one walks out.

Of course I'm joking - but is it a bad idea?

It's a bit more manly than winning a ball skin I already have!
Are you feeling confident of your Asian Uncle's pride?

 

[Sean DonCarlos]

That being the case, why do you maintain that unlimited attempts are still necessary? If it's to allow skilled players to sort themselves out more precisely in order of skill, this will still come down to those with more spare time in that tournament period having a significant advantage. I mean, say you have players A and B, with nearly similar skill levels; A has time for one run-through, B has time for ten--A stands maybe a one-in-ten chance of winning based on play time, so how are you going to get a clear picture of their real skill level out of that?

If A only has time for one run in 10 days, then yes, A will be somewhat at a disadvantage. I was more thinking about the As who have time for 3 runs or 5 runs, but not 30 or 50. The other thing to keep in mind is that if extra balls are off and the tables are in tournament mode, games will be much shorter than they are in today's tournaments, so a run might not take a whole day to finish as it can now.

It's not that unlimited attempts are necessary, it's that they can be allowed without impacting the tournament. Assume that an otherwise-unskilled player has a 10% chance of getting a competitive score on a table each time he plays, just out of sheer luck. The odds of that player getting competitive scores on at least 6 of the 8 tables - assuming he has to play them in a run and count them all or none - is roughly 1 in 42,700; and his odds of scoring competitively on at least 7 of the 8 tables is 1 in 1,370,000. So we can let this player participate 24/7 if he wants to, and he won't affect the standings.

A tournament does not determine skill level. It determines who performed the best at that particular period of time under those particular conditions; when someone wins PAPA or some other tournament, they don't say "I'm the best," they say "I somehow managed to win that tournament over all the other great players who were there! Sweet!" If you want a bigger picture of relative skill level you look at accumulated wins over time, ie--in real-world pinball competition--the IFPA ranking.

No, it doesn't determine skill level, but it should indicate a rough sense of skill level. A single session is too volatile a measure, which is why most tournaments have a long qualifying round (so that people end up appropriately placed) and then a relatively short playoff round. If my league were a single session, I would have won it this winter. (I had a strong first-week performance and was leading it for a few brief days.)

So eh really I think there's a decent argument to be made for having both Qualifying and Finals types of tournaments, as they kind of test different things and provide a different type of challenge. As someone with not always a great deal of time I think in general I would prefer a Finals-style tournament, but I can at least play the Qualifying-style in a limited way and get some measure of satisfaction out of placing semi-decently despite being short on time.

I agree, having choices is always good. Maybe once tournaments are well-established, there can be short-duration "finals-style" tournaments over a weekend or Fri-Sat-Sun for those with limited time or who prefer knockout play, and longer 10-day "qualifying-style" tournaments for those who prefer a more drawn-out competition (but who don't want to be chained to their tablet/console grinding away to have a chance to do well).

 

[superballs]

I hardly ever play TZ or any of the earlier TPA DMD era tables out of tournament, simply because 1 game can last well over an hour.

If you had to play all tables in one hit, that could take the best part of a day.
That would be worse than the current tournament.

1 game per table, per player, no extra balls, 5 tables max in tourney - then I'd participate.

You wouldn't have to play all the tables in one sitting the game can be easily set to know which tables you've played and which you haven't, so you can go to bed and continue the next day. Simply put, to submit a score you have to play all tables once and submit the scores together, with the ability to start from scratch at any time. Have 3 bad games? Start over but your score is now invalidated. Have a decent run and you can submit the score...you can hang on to your position or try all the tables again.

I assume in both proposals so far you'd be able to save the game between tables and come back later.

This makes sense.

Actually, if the real machine in question is a Twilight Zone with the 9.4H ROMs, you can pause it. Cradle the ball on the flipper and press the extra ball button. The music should stop. Let go of the flipper, and the machine will maintain the cradle on its own for up to 15 minutes. When ready to resume, press the extra ball button again to release the flippers.


Actually, that last sentence is not what I had in mind, and not how PAPA does it, either. PAPA allows a player to "void" their entry at any time up until they hand it to the scorekeeper, and so I'd allow TPA players to abandon a run as well, either during play or right afterwards. For example: You have 3 bad games in your first 3 tables and you know this run is going to have a lousy final score. In PAPA qualifying, you can abandon such a run and start a new run without penalty (besides the cost of a new entry).

What PAPA relies on is that a player of lesser skill might get lucky in 1 game, or maybe 2, but he's not going to get lucky 5 games in a row. So even if that player has a vast pocketbook and effectively unlimited attempts, he's not going to be able to grind his way to the top. Conversely, players of greater skill might have a bad run or two at first, but they will be able to put together a string of decent games at some point during the tournament. So everyone eventually ends up where they ought to be, even with unlimited play.

On TPA, with its 8-game tournaments, a better player will probably manage 6 or 7 decent games and 1 or 2 clunkers. The less-skilled player faces even longer odds than at PAPA, as he needs to get lucky 6 times just to compete at all.

So with this arrangement, you can (mostly) satisfy all parties:

• Players with little free time can still compete, knowing that it is unlikely they will be eclipsed by a lower-skill player with lots of free time, and also knowing that a bad first or second run won't lock them out of contention.
• Players with lots of free time can enjoy the tournament as much as they like, without gaining an unfair advantage by doing so, and without worrying that any good effort they put forth previously will be risked if their next run turns out bad.

TL;DR Edition: You can allow players unlimited attempts so long as the tournament is in a run-based format, and even allow them to freely choose at the end of each run whether to keep their previous score or accept the new run's score, and at the end they will still wind up about where they should be ranked in terms of their skill.

This really is the way it should be. I would hate to only play a tourney and have one shot and then just sit there for a week.

That being the case, why do you maintain that unlimited attempts are still necessary? If it's to allow skilled players to sort themselves out more precisely in order of skill, this will still come down to those with more spare time in that tournament period having a significant advantage. I mean, say you have players A and B, with nearly similar skill levels; A has time for one run-through, B has time for ten--A stands maybe a one-in-ten chance of winning based on play time, so how are you going to get a clear picture of their real skill level out of that?

A tournament does not determine skill level. It determines who performed the best at that particular period of time under those particular conditions; when someone wins PAPA or some other tournament, they don't say "I'm the best," they say "I somehow managed to win that tournament over all the other great players who were there! Sweet!" If you want a bigger picture of relative skill level you look at accumulated wins over time, ie--in real-world pinball competition--the IFPA ranking.

If FarSight intend to stick close to PAPA rules I hope they follow the Finals rules (one play-through of a series of tables) rather than the rules you've been describing, which are for Qualifying. In TPA we have no need of a Qualifying round because we don't have to narrow the field in order to fit players into a fixed number of physical tables at a fixed time.



Actually, if it was one and done, and you had a lot of time, you'd more likely spend a good deal of time immediately beforehand practicing a given table outside of the tournament. (And yeah this does give an advantage to those with more time, although not nearly as much as unlimited tournament play would.) It is a good point though that the desire to stay high in the ranking can keep pulling you back in to put up a bigger score, and this can be fun, even for those who maybe can only get an additional game or two in here and there.

So eh really I think there's a decent argument to be made for having both Qualifying and Finals types of tournaments, as they kind of test different things and provide a different type of challenge. As someone with not always a great deal of time I think in general I would prefer a Finals-style tournament, but I can at least play the Qualifying-style in a limited way and get some measure of satisfaction out of placing semi-decently despite being short on time.

There's nothing stopping anyone from practising a table in normal free play under any tourney structure. Nobody is suggesting that you have to play all the tables in one sitting. Just play them all to submit a score...you could do this in one sitting or you could do this in several sittings.

 

[smbhax]

Nobody is suggesting that you have to play all the tables in one sitting. Just play them all to submit a score...you could do this in one sitting or you could do this in several sittings.

I wasn't suggesting that anyone was suggesting that you'd have to play all the tables in one sitting either--I wasn't talking about the the whole resubmitting sets of scores thing at all, in fact. : o

 

[Clawhammer]

I have to say that I'd be very against any sort of buy more entries type format, as that would end up favoring people with deeper pockets and more time rather than just more time. PAPA style entries sound like the best format idea to me.

 

[tyche]

I think the tournaments should be about fun and not just for the elite. I just foresee the same people who can play for extended time and yes, are quite good at the tables placing over and over. I can understand top level players wanting to compete with similar but unless there was some serious restrictions it becomes how much time do you have even for those people.

I'd rather see a match play style tourney or a 1 run through. Ultimately, I'd like to compete score for score on tables with no do overs. I might get 7500 on CP or 750. That's what makes a tourney for me. Not that my best ever will be 7500 and 50 other people got 8500 after 125 restarts and I always come in 51st. Being a master of a table and then getting a junk score is pinball! That's what excites me about the game. Knowing you could blow it for reasons outside your control.

Ideally I guess both types should be available.

 

[Tann]

Why not tournament rules inspired from the Williams Challenge ones in PHoF?

Let's say:

- You have to play tables in a predefined order.
- 3 attempts per table.
- You can choose to keep a score or retry, before play the next table.
- Temporary save between tables.
- Unlimited attempts for the tournament (once you finish the seven tables, you can go for a new run, but it erases all your previous scores on each table).

 

[sotie]

I really like the idea of "one and done" with no extra balls. Simple, uncomplicated and everyone gets their fair shot.

 

[Pinballfan69]

Remove extra balls period. Also make sure tables are glitch bug free, I played my best Medieval Madness ever score over 400m for the first time ever. (I know there are better scores but still) the game got stuck in Barnyard Multiball. It was still going on with 1 ball. Could not figure out where the ball was stuck. Neither did the CPU checking after 15 seconds. Call attendant said 'Ball not stuck' etc. Was so frustrating.

One and done would in real tournaments of course but as far as week to 2 week tourney? No way. That said Extra balls off is a must.