The IFPA Ranking System is Changing. Should you be Concerned, bro?
By Rick Brewster
Before you ask, why would anyone care? It’s a fair question, but a lot of people do. For better or for worse, gaining these silly pinball points drives pinball activity in the real world. (I’m guilty of using my vacation time and flying across the country at times to do so. It’s pretty damn ridiculous when I put it like that. But hey, sometimes it’s fun!) These fake points handed out to climb the ladder of the IFPA [International Flipper Pinball Association] rankings are made up of who attends a given event, how many players are in the event, and the format of the event - all to determine who is better than who. Lots of players (and good players), and longer events with approved, high-value formats makes your point haul (known as WPPRs - World Pinball Player Ranking points) more worthwhile. Winning a D82 multi-day event could net you 150 points, and winning your local monthly with 20 players may give you 10. Check out the IFPA website for further details on pinball nerdery.
A weeknight IFPA tournament in action at 56 Brewing in Minneapolis, MN. Menards advertisements on the TV are a giveaway - non-Midwesterners, you’re missing out.
The formula to dole out these points is changing as of 1/1/2024. Before I get into the weeds, the updated metrics in 2024 will only apply to the top 250 in the world under this new ranking system: these will now be deemed the WPPR Pro rankings. So, if you’re not near the top of the competitive pinball game (and you know who you are), these changes don’t apply to you. But, lucky you! You’re gonna get a boot camp on these changes (and the IFPA ranking system as a whole) anyway. Buckle up for IFPA 101. It won’t be as unpleasant as high school math class. I promise.
Lots of left ramp shots taking place here on Stern’s Pirates of the Caribbean.
So, why are our pinball points changing?
The goal of v6.0, from Josh Sharpe, president of the IFPA:
WPPR v6.0 is focused on trying to answer a systemic problem regarding the advantages of access and privilege that certain players have at their disposal, giving themselves more opportunities to compete in IFPA sanctioned events and earn WPPR [World Pinball Player Ranking] points towards their ranking at a level that is above and beyond their peers. There’s privilege when it comes to players that live close to more opportunities, and privilege when it comes to players that can afford to travel and create those opportunities for themselves. Ultimately this leads to situations where the accuracy of players we’re attempting to rank is flawed due to the inconsistent level of opportunities some may have over others.
Who “benefits” from the current system?
As stated above, it’s sort of undeniable that people who live close to places that host large events, and travel to high-value events frequently, have rankings that are inflated relative to those who don’t or can’t. Venues that hold many events (often in a short timeframe) give players multiple opportunities to earn good WPPRs, whether you’re local or you decide to make the jaunt. These sorts of places are accused of being WPPR Farms by critics and are the most extreme example of this in practice today. I’ll use District 82’s Super Series as an example, as it’s near and dear to me while providing a good illustration: 6 full-value events with 100-150 players each, jam-packed into a 4 day span. It’s a hell of a lot easier (not to mention cheaper) to farm points playing 6 events in 4 days versus going to 6 different pinball shows around the country.
Ideally, we’d have a more accurate ranking system
Under the current WPPR system (v5.8), looking at a player’s rank doesn’t tell a complete story of that player’s ability. A player’s world ranking today consists of the sum total of WPPRs earned over a player’s top 20 events in the last three years. There is decay built in over this time period as well, gradually tapering off year by year (your WPPR hauls being 75% of original value after year 1, 50% after year 2, and zilch after 3). So, a player could play in 200 events in a three year period, and that ranking is calculated identically to a player who has only played in 20 events (or even less!) over that same three year period - it just takes your top 20 results into account. So, you have to play well to earn your WPPRs, but it significantly incentivizes and benefits you to play more. So yeah, get out there. You don’t earn points playing virtual pinball at home.
More WPPR grinding in action. This copy of NASCAR leaned like you wouldn’t believe, but them’s the breaks playing on location.
There are various other metrics available to judge a player’s ability today, but they don’t count toward your rank. My quick-and-dirty analysis for estimating a given player’s abilities is to check three metrics: their IFPA rank, their Matchplay rating (based off of the widely utilized Glicko system for single player activities), and their efficiency percentage (which will become very important shortly). Efficiency % is the amount of WPPRs earned in all events over your last 3 years of play, relative what is available to the victor: if the winner of a tourney gets 50 WPPRs, and I earn 10 WPPRs, my efficiency in that event is 20%. Very good players are above 30%: most players are lower.
The hope is to even things out Geographically
Going back to our District 82 example: our Green Bay locals can get to play in say, 50 high-value events a year, and maybe they only place in the top 10 for a handful. They’ll get good points for those events on their WPPR card, with no real penalty for trying the other 44 times. I’m not taking shots at Green Bay locals or District 82 here, to be clear: it’s a particularly exaggerated example of how folks can rise through the ranks under the current system. Sorry, Erik Thoren and company. You know I love my Green Bay trips. (editor’s note: he does love his Green Bay trips) Even with ranking as the “standard,” we all kinda know today this isn’t a true measure of a player’s ability.
A buddy of mine asked me a sincere question earlier this year: do you think we’d be top 100 players if we lived in Green Bay? (We’re both just inside the top 500.) I laughed at first… and then I thought about it. It’s a ridiculous jump, but it feels plausible under the current system. Sure, some of that would be getting better by playing in a dedicated tournament facility with a talented player base - but a lot of it would be just being there for the opportunities as the WPPRs rain down regularly.
Not an IFPA sanctioned tournament.
So what is in Josh Sharpe’s Ranking Bonanza 6.0?
Your ranking now uses only 15 events instead of 20*
You may get taxed if you go to a ton of events
And, who you play now matters
*The changes in v6.0 only affect the top 250 for the WPPR Pro rankings. However: IFPA rankings will use a player’s top 15 events instead of the top 20 events across all players starting in 2024. This is the one big piece that will affect the masses.
The 6.0 change features a “WPPRtunity metric.” No, you can’t make this up.
WPPRs earned in top 15 events / efficiency % = WPPRtunity
What is a WPPRtunity?
It says, about how many WPPR chances would I need to actually earn the WPPRs I have? It is then compared against the average WPPRtunity for the top 250 players. (This is the access and privilege piece.) So, where does the tax come in? The rate at which you get taxed depends on that now-pretty-dang-important efficiency %. If you are under the average WPPRtunity threshold (good results without many attempts), you’re tax-free, and living in the Caymans. If you are over, the IFPA’s IRS is coming at you with weapons drawn because you didn’t play well enough relative to the tournament opportunities you had. Think tax brackets: all points earned after your hit that WPPRtunity threshold are taxed, but you earn points at full value until you get there. (Good luck figuring out where that threshold is, btw.)
There are two certainties in life: Death and WPPR Taxes
The biggest criticism of this so-called tax bracket is that it disincentivizes play once you reach this arbitrary WPPRtunity threshold. Originally, I was highly concerned with the rollout of this system - as a whole, and for my own playing interests. I play a hefty amount, and I historically haven’t capitalized on those opportunities all too often (especially the further I go back in my pinball career). At a certain point, my future WPPRs would only be earned at around 1/7th of their value in 2024. I would be discouraged, and it would lead me to playing less. The original plan was top 1000, and this was modified after a lot of feedback (AKA, criticism) on effects for players that are not truly top-tier, and/or still moving up the ranks. And, if you’re top 250, you’re probably playing moderately to highly efficiently, so your WPPR-taxing is lessened compared to the 900th ranked guy. Some folks who are trying, and playing a lot, would tank - and tank hard. That isn’t fun. Applying this system to the best and only the best was a good move, in this writer’s humble opinion. (And, not just because I dodged the WPPR tax collectors this time around.)
Green bay? You’re back baby!
So let’s talk strength of schedule (who you play) and how it now factors into rankings. Green Bay locals, here’s where I make it up to you - you all have a ton of objectively good players to play against (using any ranking system), and that’s now factored in and working in your favor. Strength of schedule is defined as the % of top 250 players you’ve played against in your result set, and adjusted if higher than 25%. Using Keith Elwin as an example: his eff % is an eye-watering 58.11% of points available in tournaments he entered as of the time of writing. Now, he plays against top 250 players in 32.17% of his tournaments: that adjusted efficiency % goes up even higher to 74.78%. TL;DR: he plays against great players and performs even better, so his tax rate is minimal.
Gambling is prohibited in IFPA sanctioned events, and subject to a one year suspension. This rule does not seem to be taken very seriously in the real world.
Did you follow all that? Good for you!
This is a lot. If you weren’t already familiar, and will retain a third of that when this conversation comes up at your next monthly, good on you. (Do these things actually come up in conversation, or is it just me bringing these things up in conversation? Having an existential moment, brb.) So: does all of this matter and will it change real-world behavior? Not really. And that’s a good thing. Josh took the liberty of posting all top 250 players, along with their old & new ranks. My take, and seemingly most others in the community, agree that it passes the smell test. Is it perfect? Eh, maybe not. Are there too many made up numbers? Probably, yeah. Do the rankings feel closer to what a player should be ranked according to their ability, relative to the current system? My answer is a firm yes.
Winners and Losers of 6.0
Winners:
Consistently good pinball players. Their great performances are reflected accurately and not taxed (or taxed heavily).
Players who don’t play in big events (often, or at all). Your local legends who don’t play a ton get a bump.
Me! Josh Sharpe is only using the top 250 instead of top 1000, so I’m tax-free. As a certain commentator from New York might say… boom.
Losers:
Top 250 players near Green Bay, WI, Wilmington, DE, Lund, Sweden, and Fulda, Germany. They get a ton of chances at high-value events, and if they don’t consistently do well, they are taxed for it versus the system saying it’s okay, try again next time and we’ll take that result instead.
People with unlimited money to spend on pinball events. Those who travel to all the large, high-WPPR-value events and don’t do well… see point above.
Josh Sharpe - his rank goes down in the new system. Womp!
Watching hockey instead of playing pinball in between tournament rounds. Preserving those good flips for when it matters.
An Update.
Outside of these WPPR Pro changes in v6.0, a new clause just got added in the 11th hour - after this piece was finalized and sent to the editor, mind you. This rule states all participants in a league or tournament need to have the opportunity to win the whole shebang, and not be eliminated from the possibility of winning based off of seeding and grouping structure. Divisional placements also must be based on total points earned in league play, unless the express written consent of the IFPA is granted beforehand. It recently came to light via some questioning that the a certain league was overvalued in 2023 (due to a change announced at the end of 2022), along with other questions on its seeding format. Previous points from this year were retroactively nerfed, and we have a(nother) new rule going into next year. I’m not going to go deep into the events that unfolded over those couple days and led to this change – league formats are its own beast worthy of a dedicated article, and I’ve gone on long enough here.
Josh Sharpe and I are pretty much BFFs after reading hundreds and hundreds of his TiltForums/Discord replies over the last handful of months on this system. (Except, I’m not sure if he knows who I am.) A big thank you to Lewis Bevans for helping sanity check the information in the above piece, and making sure I’m not putting (too many) words in Mr. Sharpe’s mouth. (For real though Josh, email me if I’m off on anything here.) For further reading, check out the current system’s calculations, a preview of next year’s top 250, and the detailed calculation process of 6.0.
