[FSPA] League questions - player opinions wanted

Sun May 12 19:53:50 EDT 2024

>From what I remember, someone whined that it’s not possible for new players
to win “A” since they are dropped at the bottom of the ladder at the start
of the season. So, IFPA mandated the random pairing in the beginning to
mitigate that. It makes sense if you are an experienced player moving to
another league location—your IFPA record should dictate that you belong
higher up—but generally new/inexperienced players will never make “A”,
period.

I am personally not a fan of the new format. It needs tweaking. Ocelot
(non-FSPA) I believe is trying swiss pairing this season so we’ll see how
that works out (we knocked out Week 1 last week, I will find out tomorrow).
At MSB it was fully random last season. I enjoyed meeting new players but
ended up demolishing them. Some thought it was fun, but others I could tell
weren’t having a good time. Also, I play to compete/stay sharp, and if I am
paired with people that don’t really belong in “A”, then I am generally not
having a good time either. If I want to play by myself, I don’t need a
league to do that. But on the other hand, if I want to make States then
league is my primary way of doing it due to my work schedule, so the WPPR
aspect is important to me. I probably wouldn’t do more than guest
occasionally if no ranking points were involved.

Also, someone mentioned prizes/trophies. I really like that stuff. They are
mementos of a time that’s in the past. For instance, I still have one of
those sweet pinball machine trophies from when I first won “A” at John’s
Place. I have an old Bally Eight Ball playfield hanging on my wall from
winning a season at Red Zone. If I simply got cash (like has been the case
the last couple of years), I would have forgotten those things by now. When
we went to cash only, Edan offered to deduct the cost of a trophy from the
winnings, which I opted for, and that’s another memento I still have (and I
like it). That option hasn’t been offered in subsequent seasons.

Party: I do enjoy it and would like to continue to see it happening. It has
lost a bit of luster since it’s at public locations I already play at, but
still, it gives me a chance to catch up with cool people I don’t get to see
very often. (And on that note, I love pizza and am OK with that; the BBQ at
MSB last time though.. ugh 🤮).

-Austin

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 6:05 PM Wei-Hwa Huang via FSPA <fspa at fspazone.org>
wrote:

> Did the IFPA give any specific details as to why the old FSPA ladder
> system would not be eligible for any WPPRs?  If not, how did you know what
> to change to qualify for WPPRs?
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 10:55 AM Dan Reynolds via FSPA <fspa at fspazone.org>
> wrote:
>
>> IFPA indicated, with zero wiggle room or debate, that they would not
>> recognize (as in ZERO WPPRs) the traditional FSPA league format as of Jan
>> 1, 2024.  The changes in format were made to accommodate IFPA requirements
>> while still retaining some semblance of the ladder format.
>>
>> I would not describe the IFPA’s actions as “generous” or “giving free
>> rein”.  Also this wasn’t about maximizing WPPRs, it was about merely
>> qualifying for them at all.
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On May 12, 2024, at 1:10 PM, Wei-Hwa Huang via FSPA <fspa at fspazone.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 8:08 AM Sergio Johnson via FSPA <
>> fspa at fspazone.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The private feedback that I’ve gotten so far is that folks really hate
>>> the wide disparities in skill levels seen in the early weeks of the new
>>> system. It was not a fun experience for them. Unfortunately that’s the cost
>>> of doing business with the IFPA. If anyone has any additional feedback on
>>> that or other topics, I’d love to hear it!
>>>
>>
>> Encountering the wide disparity in skill level was the first big culture
>> shock when I moved from FSPA to BAPA twenty years ago. Over here at BAPA
>> there's not really a ladder; everyone justs get re-sorted based on the
>> previous week's score.  So I was often playing against players of much
>> wider skill level, and frankly, I hated it too.
>>
>> But in those early years, when I asked around if people would prefer a
>> system more like FSPA's ladder, the common refrain I got was "I like being
>> able to play against a wide range of players and meet more people in the
>> league.  Playing against the same group of people week after week sounds
>> boring."
>>
>> I highly doubt this is due to some Washington vs. California culture
>> clash; I think this mostly goes to show how strong factors like tradition
>> and "what you're used to" matter in things like this. So my perspective on
>> that point is, if the league is growing, don't worry too much about people
>> who don't like the new system. There are good and bad things about it, and
>> after a few years most people will get used to it. There will always be
>> some folks who like the "traditional ways" but they'll be offset by the
>> folks who like the new ways more.
>>
>> Having said that, though, I would be curious to know what specific
>> interaction with the IFPA caused the redesign. Based on my interaction with
>> the IFPA, my understanding is that they are rather generous with giving
>> leagues free rein in how league competition is structured.  Some structures
>> may result in fewer WPPRs than others, but that doesn't seem to be
>> your problem.  Looking at the league rules for IFPA (
>> https://www.ifpapinball.com/definitions/ ), the only thing I see is the
>> rule "All participants of an IFPA sanctioned tournament must have a chance
>> to win the highest division available if they want to be included in the
>> results submitted to IFPA."  But that doesn't prohibit the ladder system
>> per se, it just means that, for anyone who doesn't have a chance of winning
>> (say someone in the lowest groups on the ladder system), you can't include
>> their names in the IFPA submission and they don't get WPPR points.  But for
>> those people, WPPR probably doesn't matter anyway, they're in the lower
>> groups!  So what am I missing here?  Why did the FSPA decide that the old
>> system wasn't compatible with the IFPA?
>>
>> --
>> Wei-Hwa Huang, onigame at gmail.com
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Mad scientists are often wrongfully accused of using science for evil.
>> We're using evil for science; that's totally different!
>> _______________________________________________
>> FSPA mailing list
>> FSPA at fspazone.org
>> http://lists.fspazone.org/mailman/listinfo/fspa
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FSPA mailing list
>> FSPA at fspazone.org
>> http://lists.fspazone.org/mailman/listinfo/fspa
>>
>
>
> --
> Wei-Hwa Huang, onigame at gmail.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Mad scientists are often wrongfully accused of using science for evil.
> We're using evil for science; that's totally different!
> _______________________________________________
> FSPA mailing list
> FSPA at fspazone.org
> http://lists.fspazone.org/mailman/listinfo/fspa
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fspazone.org/pipermail/fspa/attachments/20240512/0b8d8606/attachment.htm>