Layout of qualification and playoff system in EPC.
Jörgen Holm
the horrible system used in the EPC held in UK.
For all big tournaments the qualification and playoff is the same year
after year, I.e. IFPA, PAPA, DPO etc.
Isn't it about time to agree to a system that the EPC can use every
year. So we don't end up what all kind of "not-so-good" systems like
it was in Switzerland and UK. Which only make some people to ignore
the tournament and also get people really frustrated.
To have a pre-agreed system will also make it easier for the country
that arrange the tournament to not have to find out a system. Which
sometimes not end up with a fair/smart system.
Maybe this is something for the WPPR generals around the Europe to
agree about.
Would appreciate your opinion for this issue, thanks.
Brgds
Jörgen Holm, Sweden.
Phillip Eaton
> ...so we don't end up what all kind of "not-so-good"
Well I'm happy to respond to this, as I helped organise the UK
tournament, was involved in the Swiss EPC as a referee (I live in
Zürich), and will be helping out just a little at the French EPC (with
my French wife).
Without wishing to bestow undue credit to your post, I can see the
merit in your Utopian ideal.
But before I discuss that, I looked at the DPO2010 qualifying rules
that you quoted, and it says:
"Each player will choose 6 machines and play one game on each of those
[out of 20 machines]. The scores will be taken by a referee. Each
player can also play one of his/her chosen machines again and try to
improve his/her score."
That sounds virtually identical to the UK qualifying system
(especially the single game replay that the UK introduced) and the
French system for this year.
But let's ignore that, there is certainly a difference in the format
of the IFPA tournament and a 6-game qualifier like in the UK 2009 and
France this year.
There are reasons for this - mostly based around the resources
available, machines, space, people, but also experience of the team
and the aim of the event. In the UK, our 2009 EPC was at a pinball
show, open to the public, and over 1000 people attended, like every
year. We don't have a specific tournament event with no public access.
Machines are provided by pinball enthusiasts and to pay for their
support, the venue charges the general public to come in and they get
to play the machines all day on free-play. That means that the
tournaments have a limited pool of machines to use. Additionally,
there are a limited number of people willing to referee a tournament
(or series of tournaments) over a weekend, and we spend *months* of
effort beforehand to prepare, so we can do it all as efficiently as
possible on the day.
Another thing is that a poor to average player (i.e. most competitors,
like me) don't ever get past the qualifiers, so if the tournament goes
on for ages, great...but what am I supposed to do for the rest of the
event? If the event is a show, I can go and play all sorts of machines
on freeplay, with my friends, and have a beer :-)
The Swiss event was a different mix of resources and circumstances.
When I saw the qualifying format and I didn't think it'd work, and I
told them so. They listened to what I said, but didn't change it and I
still signed up to help out anyway. I'm glad they didn't change it,
because I think it worked really well. As someone who never qualifies,
I got over 3 hours of tournament time, instead of 30 minutes or so,
which was all we could offer in the UK - result! Some of my pinball
friends disliked it so much, they decided not to come...that's sad,
because I think they missed a great event.
So, whilst I think your standard format sounds good on paper, the
reality is that right now, not every country could host the event, or
would want to host it like that. From my viewpoint, pinball is a
social event, I meet up with friends from all over Europe (and USA
when I've been there), make new friends, discuss machines, learn some
new foreign words, and play a bit of pinball, hopefully improving on
my performance last time.
In the UK, we get over a 1000 people at our event, our EPC tournament
was over-subscribed in under 3 days and our pinball leagues are
growing every year, so we must be doing something right. The French
tournaments, like the UK, could have reached over 200 entries, if
there was room to take them.
But we're not standing still, we're always looking to change things
and improve. This year at the UK Pinball Party, I'm hoping we can
include elements of the Swiss EPC2010 qualifying, where people get
some time playing as part of their entry instead of a set number of
games, I think that gives better value to more people and, as we saw
in Switzerland, the better players still go through. Maybe the changes
will stop people coming to our UK event...but I doubt it.
One last thing, if I had a Euro for every time someone complained
about our UK tournament format in the UK, I'd have...1 Euro. If I had
a Euro for each person that came up to me and said it worked pretty
good and they enjoyed it, I could buy lots of new rubbers for my RBION
and a set of new balls.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Phillip
EMO
You will never get everyone to agree the "best" tournament format
because there are considerations that contradict each other and there
are several formats that work well. I do think you need to consider:
1. What is best for the finalists
2. What is best for the There is the best for the qualifiers
3. What is best for people to view the final.
After that it is about finding a good compromise but I quite the fact
there are different tournaments.
For example I really appreciated the fact that in the IFPA competition
in the UK that there was a full day of qualification and that we got
to play with different players.
I also liked the last German EPC because of the long qualifying
session and final day.
I also like the sudden death style finals used in the Welsh Classic
because it is really exciting both as a player and watcher (4
finalists play 3 games with the looser dropping out each time).
I don't like it when your forced to pick from a few modern games. I
would much rather that players (we) were "told" which games to play
and all played the same games.
Maybe one day a 1981 Stern Lightning or Iron Maiden will be in there
and then I would be happy.
Best wishes
Pal
tournaments. We can never set a format that will make everybody
(including Jörgen) happy, but a permanent system is still better than
different systems different years.
I think that the qualification system works quite well. Even though
two tries on each machine would be nice, it might make the
qualifications take too much time, and the joker is a good way of
mitigating too much random unluckiness. Good players should still be
able to make it into the finals in most cases (but not all cases - for
instance I failed in the UK and Paul failed in France). If the time is
there - make it two tries on each machine.
The Swiss system (the one used at the Swiss EPC, and not the "Swiss
system" borrowed from chess) worked better than I thought, and
organizers of less important tournaments should feel free to use it if
they like it, but it's simply not a good system to decide who is the
best pinball player in Europe. Tournament fairness is more important
than visitors playtime (playtime can be spent at recreation machines).
The finals system should be made much less random. Ban classics
machines, and make it best out of three on three different machines.
An option is to keep the very final as a five balls match on one
machine, since it has become a tradition, but I wouldn't cry if it was
changed to best out of three.
/P
Nicolas LINQUE
Yes, I think this is a good idea too.
I've already asked if we could have a wiki with all tournaments formats, the best practices, the available softwares etc ...
> Message du 23/03/11 12:44
> De : "Pal"
> A : "Europinball"
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: Layout of qualification and playoff system in EPC.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Europinball" group.
> To post to this group, send email to europ...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to europinball...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/europinball?hl=en.
>
>
INK
Did you hear the news? Next year the European Football Championships will be played with two (2) balls on the field! And in the playoffs - the first team that scores a goal will win! But that's not all - in 2014 they will go back to the old format but make the tournament bigger and allow Division VII teams and play on concrete fields. For the 2015 tournament they are announcing a change in the rules so there will be only one goal for both teams and 22 players per team - all played in the dark.
Should we really have that approach to our sport?
A few answers to some of the previous statments:
>But before I discuss that, I looked at the DPO2010 qualifying rules
>that you quoted, and it says:
>"Each player will choose 6 machines and play one game on each of those
>[out of 20 machines]. The scores will be taken by a referee. Each
>player can also play one of his/her chosen machines again and try to
>improve his/her score."
Jörgen mentioned a few annual tournaments that has a recurring system - not necessarily good ones.
And that is still a bad system. One attempt on a machine you have never tried is just too much chance for a European Championships. I know that 6 machines and a Joker is enough for some good players, but it still is a bad system compared to other systems that won't take more time. (For example 2 attempt on 4 machines would only be 1 more play per player). A good system should minimize the chance (there will always be good players not qualifiying) and see most of the good players making it through.
If you spend the time and money to travel to the EPC, you don't really want it to be a coin toss if you qualify or not - it should be on your own merit.
>There are reasons for this - mostly based around the resources
>available, machines, space, people, but also experience of the team
>and the aim of the event."
A minimum of resources should be stated which has to be met by a country applying for the EPC. If you can't make it - DON'T APPLY FOR THE EPC. The aim of the event should always be the same!
Note: The minimum resources could be quite small if using the right system.
>What should the poor to average players do after the qualifications?
The EPC is the European Pinball Championships - not the average local tournament. If you can't accept this - DON'T SIGN UP TO PARTICIPATE.
Note: If you want to apply for the EPC, the minimum number of machines for casual playing should be 10. Preferably 20 or more. Then this won't be a much of a problem. There should also be some kind of big screen viewing of Playoff games.
>Pinball as a social event
Yes, good point - of course we want new players discovering the joy of pinball. BUT keep the competitive pinball apart from the casual playing. Use two divisions if you still want for the casual players to compete, but don't let it ruin the EPC. How would it look like if Division III players could enter the Olympics? There's a reason for that and maybe the EPC should have a WPPR minimum (perhaps rank 2000 or better) for players to even be allowed?
And if you have 1.000 visitors (UK Pinball Show) you should have the organization to be able to arrange a B-division too - if not - DON'T APPLY FOR THE EPC.
>So, whilst I think your standard format sounds good on paper, the
>reality is that right now, not every country could host the event, or
>would want to host it like that. From my viewpoint, pinball is a
>social event, I meet up with friends from all over Europe (and USA
>when I've been there), make new friends, discuss machines, learn some
>new foreign words, and play a bit of pinball, hopefully improving on
>my performance last time.
Once again - don't try to make the EPC a social event - it should be a tournament designed to decide the European Pinball Champion!
If you can't agree to this - DON'T APPLY FOR THE EPC.
>You will never get everyone to agree the "best" tournament format
>because there are considerations that contradict each other and there
>are several formats that work well. I do think you need to consider:
>
> 1. What is best for the finalists
> 2. What is best for the There is the best for the qualifiers
> 3. What is best for people to view the final.
>
>After that it is about finding a good compromise but I quite the fact
>there are different tournaments.
Exactly. And it's not that hard when you boil it all down knowing the facts - 20 machines, two days, 160 people. The goal? To bring up one of the very best players.
>For example I really appreciated the fact that in the IFPA competition
>in the UK that there was a full day of qualification and that we got
>to play with different players.
Yes, a really nice system when you have 32 or 64 players present for three days - that won't work for the EPC with its 160 players.
>I also liked the last German EPC because of the long qualifying
>session and final day.
That's ok too - as long as the logistics work out. Either you can have Qualification Heats or Drop-In qualifications. With the Heat system you have the problem of having the players at the right place at the right time, but the need for personnel can be lesser. The Drop-In system is more flexible but you will either need more personnel or have players play in pairs and noting each others scores. Unless you simply use a system where a referee per 4 machines start the machines and then note the scores via WiFi to the main computer. Personally I trust my players and just hand them the scorecard and tell them to get all scores signed by another player (sign and TAG). Number of personnel = 1 head referee.
>I also like the sudden death style finals used in the Welsh Classic
>because it is really exciting both as a player and watcher (4
>finalists play 3 games with the looser dropping out each time).
That's an excellent final, but once again - there's a lot of chance present there as only one (1) machine is used (3 balls) to decide the first outcome. Should not be used for the EPC.
I will follow this post with a few suggestions on how to arrange the EPC and more important - my thoughts about what makes a good pinball player and how to build a tournament around this, but now I have about 80 machines to fix so I'll have to get back to that in a few days. ;-)
/ INK
Patrik Pal Bodin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Europinball" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/europinball/-/IsbUcRxnsiUJ.
Josh Sharpe
Olli-Mikko points me out to this thread, and I wanted to share my
opinion on the EPC. As one of the 3 Triple Crown events that the IFPA
values at double WPPR value, I think that it's extremely important to
do all we can to maintain the prestige of the event within the
competitive pinball landscape.
I did participate at the EPC in the UK, and I will say while the
qualification style was extremely short, there was something unique
and challenging for me about the massive pressure of needing to
perform well immediately, with really no safety net for getting
another chance later on. Here in the US we're of course very used to
entering as many times as you want, which takes a ton of that pressure
off :-)
I think that the best solution is to stick with that format for
qualifying, followed by some sort of knockout rounds for those that
qualify for the playoffs. My one suggestion would be to simply
increase the number of games used for qualifying to create a nice
balance of having that sense of urgency immediately, while gathering
more data to determine the qualifiers (which will increase the chances
of skillful play advancing to the next rounds).
We run a similar side tournament here in the US at the Midwest Gaming
Classic called "Clock Chaos", and players play 12 games in
qualification, and are ranked accordingly. The top 12 players then
advance to the "13th hour" and get to replay one of their 12 machines
for a better score. From what I've seen running that tournament the
last 4 years, 12 games seems to be enough to get the best players to
bubble up to the top, and certainly make a cut into a knockout round.
Obviously the more games that you can fit in, the more data you can
gain, and the more accurate results I think you can collect. We are
currently helping develop the format of the Pinnesota National
Championship here in the US next month, and I believe they are using
the EPC style qualifying from the UK, but using 16 games for
qualifying. The top 32 players then advance to group play the
following day, with the top 8 advancing to head-to-head play the third
day. We'll see how that goes.
Additional comments below:
On Jul 4, 6:37 am, INK <i...@pinballseye.se> wrote:
> And that is still a bad system. One attempt on a machine you have never
> tried is just too much chance for a European Championships. I know that 6
> machines and a Joker is enough for some good players, but it still is a bad
> system compared to other systems that won't take more time. (For example 2
> attempt on 4 machines would only be 1 more play per player). A good system
> should minimize the chance (there will always be good players not
> qualifiying) and see most of the good players making it through.
through. Tournaments that don't do this die a slow death here in the
US, and the prestige of those events quickly go in the toilet because
'good' players don't want to participate. If you lose that good player
base and they don't attend your tournament, even if it's the European
or World Championship, the tournament simply becomes irrelevant.
> The EPC is the European Pinball Championships - not the average local
> Note: If you want to apply for the EPC, the minimum number of machines for
> casual playing should be 10. Preferably 20 or more. Then this won't be a
> much of a problem. There should also be some kind of big screen viewing of
> Playoff games.
tournament, and trying to balance the issues of the ~100 players with
the issues of accommodating 1000-2000 casual attendees is a problem.
There needs to be a dedication to preserving the prestige of the EPC
tournament at all costs, and if the issues regarding hosting a show
impacts the ability to pull this off, then that host should not sign
up to participate.
> Yes, good point - of course we want new players discovering the joy of
> pinball. BUT keep the competitive pinball apart from the casual playing.
> Use two divisions if you still want for the casual players to compete, but
> don't let it ruin the EPC. How would it look like if Division III players
> could enter the Olympics? There's a reason for that and maybe the EPC
> should have a WPPR minimum (perhaps rank 2000 or better) for players to
> even be allowed?
having any impact on the size of the field. Just looking at past
EPC's, here's some data:
EPC2011 - 154 players total, 28 players under rank 2000
EPC2010 - 144 players total, 8 players under rank 2000
EPC2009 - 151 players total, 11 players under rank 2000
You can talk about changing the minimum line, but this really starts
to challenge the tournament being an "Open" event and eligible for
WPPR points at all.
Josh
LDK
Just let us decide on a adequate EPC system and stick with that.
I have unfortunately not participated in any other EPC than the one in Sweden 2007, which I was partly responsible for. The competition feedback then was very positive with that format. Perhaps something to use as a template. This qualification system has been used in the swedish championships since 2003 and has consistently had a good way of selecting and rank the best players in the field of players.
//David "LDK" Kjellberg