Some pinball games are inherently “hard”, even when configured more like typical location games as opposed to PAPA standards (“PAPA standards” –> steep, fast, tilts anywhere from moderate to sneeze, Extra Hard software settings). An example might be Shadow: many of the key shots are tight and/or potentially drainy, and there’s no single game feature you can point to as having safe “gimme” points.

Other games have both “easy” and “hard” aspects but the game software is balanced well enough such that neither is an obvious choice. I think Whirlwind is a nice example here: I have a good chance of being able to just pound the right ramp a few dozen times and get a moderate score — somewhat easy, though endurance becomes a factor. Or I can try for multiball (somewhat hard), and IF I can start multiball and IF I can hit the side ramp a few times during multiball (quite hard) I’ll blow the aforementioned moderate score away — but if I fail at that whole setup, my score will probably suck. Great risk/reward balance.

In examples like these, I think that the game doesn’t have to be set to 9 degree slope or sneeze tilt to be “hard” (or have hard aspects) — just selection of a well designed, well balanced game takes care of business.

I figure sometimes the selection and configuration of games at PAPA is designed to increase the number of tickets sold — nothing wrong with that, of course, we’ve gotta fund the very impressive purse somehow. I think one possible approach would be the concept of the “buy-in extra game” — I think this has come up before. The idea would be that once per ticket, a player could pay the same price as a whole ‘nother ticket in their division to replay one game on their active ticket. (It would be an interesting discussion in itself whether the replay had to be on the same game, or if the player could choose any game in the bank — either way, any earlier score on a given title would be overwritten by the replay, no duplicates.) I think this would provide a very interesting new strategic element to game selection, while generating considerable additional revenue for the tournament, reducing the need to cut down on game times simply to increase the number of tickets that get pumped through.

BTW, I told Kevin before, but it bears repeating: nice job on the tournament game selection and configuration this year. I thought it was a really nice spread, and very fair. Great conditions on the floor, too.

extending off of sigma’s categorizations: game’s with make it or break it window’s of opportunity are more digital( scan-tron ), and less analog ( short answer ).

(Except for Classics, where that can’t be avoided at all.)

If the format were a single-game qualifying like Pinball Expo, or a sum-your-games qualifying like Seattle / CA Extreme, then more players may prefer the randomizers! But at PAPA, I think choosing randomizing games (such as this year’s Monster Bash and Ripley’s) is asking for trouble.

And during the games — there is definitely some control to be had! I say keep it simple, and stick to shots that are easy to figure out. Personally I like to shoot the easiest shots in the game until I’m used to them, then branch out as much as the game will allow. And of course there are some shots you just stay the hell away from, because they’re too risky to bother.

Another thing that occurs to me is how, in terms of pinball, the player best benefits from observing their own approach to the games in the arena, and is subsequently making adjustments within themselves in order to thrive amidst the gambit that is PAPA qualifying. Sculpting self-awareness around the game. That’s one hell of a disciplinary exercise. Makes me wonder what is sacrificed for focus.

And that there’s so much more to success at PAPA than choosing the 5 games upon which you’ll make your qualifying attempt, but choosing your path through each game as it occurs… As though you have control over anything beyond hitting the start button.