Scoring preference and why?

[jtischauser]

Ok, got to thinking about this last night after the RO's shot. Here is what I propose. I weighted different targets with different weights based on the difficulty and time it takes to shoot them.

Pistol
3pts Full Size Paper
4pts Half Size Paper, Poppers
5pts Plates (6"x6")

Shotgun
4pts Poppers
5pts Plates, Stationary Clays
6pts Flying Clays, Slugs

Rifle
3pts Full Size Paper(inside 20yds)
4pts Full Size Paper(past 20yds), Half Size Paper
7pts Steel to 100yds
9pts Steel 101-200yds
15pts Steel 201-infinity

Feel free to adjust and make suggestions. If we get it dialed in before this weekend I will do a test run at our match. I do think this will be a better balance of the points system and total time. Allowing a shooter to make a mistake and not be hurt as bad as total time, but also at the same time not get the shaft on the points system.

I think having too many target point values will be very confusing and will waste time for match admin to calculate each stages value.

I have been thinking more about the longer range targets. Typically a stage with say 5-6 long range targets will have less close range targets simply because the long range targets take more time which leaves less time for faster targets because as a match director you want your stages to have close to similar times so the overall flow of the match is smooth.

Currently with the 100 points per stage they long range targets are given huger penalties for no hitting the targets. That does two things. It ensures that the competitor makes a discernible effort to hit the targets and it forces the shooter to give those targets more attention or time in the clock.

The question then becomes do you make the slower/harder targets worth more match points or do you keep them worth the same 5 points as an easier target but penalize the shooter with time penalties. The later option is basically what we do now. I think from a match points perspective the harder targets need a higher value. Say 10 points rather than just 5 points that the easy targets are worth. I also think you need a time penalty associated with those more difficult targets in order to keep from having simply not shooting at or not hitting the targets be the fastest way to shoot the stage.

Typically a 10-15 second miss penalty on a long range target will suffice and forces every shooter to attempt to hit it.

 

[jtischauser]

The next thing one must consider is gun transitions or the number of different guns used in each stage. I think we can all agree that a one gun stage is easier/faster than a two or three gun stage. Adding guns adds time for transitions. It also increases the possibility of gun malfunctions.

So do we add points to stages with more guns?

Andy Horner's scoring system does just that. One gun stages are worth 100 points. Two gun stages are worth 125 points. Three gun stages are worth 150 points. I think his system definitely has merit but I think it is flawed because you can have a 50 target all shotgun stage that has more shooting than a quick three gun 30 target stage.

I think we do need to increase a stages point value depending on the number of guns. But how many points is another's gun worth? Andy Horner's scoring system says each additional gun is worth an additional 25 points. I'm not sure what is correct. I think an additional 10 stage point per gun maybe more equitable but I would need to evaluate that with some actual stages I've seen in matches to see how it all plays out.

 

[Wall]

Looks like a system that will be a nightmare to score unless you have stages set up with only 1 target type.

 

[jtischauser]

Looks like a system that will be a nightmare to score unless you have stages set up with only 1 target type.

I am assuming his scoring plan was to do just like most matches. Neutralized/Unhit/fail to engage. The target/stage points are assigned to the stage based on the targets used in the stage. I.e. More targets equals more points.

 

[LoganbillJ]

The plan above is only to determine the number of stage points for each stage. Jesse is correct. Scoring will remain the same.

 

[LoganbillJ]

So to test Jesse's theory about taking too much time to determine stage points I did a test. The stage brief was drawn up before the stage was set, and tweaked to match the exact setup after. All targets shown are the locations and correct targets. The exception being long range targets are not to scale.

MP1 @ 75
MP2 @ 100
RF1 @ 100
RF2 @ 125
RF3 @ 180
RF4 @ 300
RF5 @ 200

Using the points system I described above and the WSB I calculated the stage points in 1 min 35 sec.

70 Shotgun(14 4" plates)
26 Pistol (6 Full Size Paper, 1 Half Size)
56 Rifle(2 minis, and 5 Flashers)
20 points for transitioning guns

172 Points total.

 

[Wall]

So how are the stage scores calculated? On percentages?

If jesse shoots that stage in 45sec & I shoot it in 30, what will our scores be?

 

[LoganbillJ]

Based on my example you would get 172 points and Jesse would get 114.6 points.

Scores will be calculated the exact same way as points scoring. The stages will just be weighted based on target difficulty and number of guns used, rather than the standard 100 points per stage.

Shooters will get the benefit of being able to mess up and not be 100% screwed for the match while a 20 sec burner won't be worth the same points as a long range stage. I calculated the remaining 4 stages we are shooting here on Saturday. They range from 158 to 260 points.

 

[LuckyDucky]

It might help to have a vanilla stage as a "control"

And then you can gauge difficulty from there and add points or subtract points from 100 to get your stage point level.

 

[Wall]

So he can beat me on every other stage of a 6 stage match by say 10 points, but I beat him by 58 points on the long stage as in the example above & I win the match. Even though he has me 5 stages to 1?

Doesn't sound much different than cumulative time.

 

[LoganbillJ]

Attached is a test I ran comparing the normal 100pts/stage scoring vs the weighted version discussed above. These are actual scores and stages that myself and the remaining RO's shot last night. The purpose of weighted points is to allow a shooter to mess up a stage while being forgiving like the points system but also be a little more fair as to the stage difficulty. Again if you have any suggestions let me know.

The first one shown on the pdf is using the weighted scoring. The second is the old 100 point system. Total time is listed on both for reference.
View attachment 7605

 

[Wall]

Notice how your points system fall in step with total time?

 

[LoganbillJ]

They do but is more forgiving. Only one point difference between 2nd and 3rd. Where the 100 point system rewards a guy for having one stage win and bumps him one spot while there is a time discrepancy. The results I have are just a small sample until this weekend. I may run them on last months match as well and see how things end up.

The biggest reason I see that guys want the points system is forgiveness of a butchered stage. Weighted stage points does exactly that while keeping the goal of this sport in mind, speed.

 

[Wall]

Weighted stages reward a long stage shooter over the rest of the match. If your match is all long stages, no biggie. But matches are primarily 1 long stage with the rest short stages.

Lets say jesse sucks at long range but is good with a shotgun & pistol & I suck at shotgun but am good with long range & pistol. He beats me the entire match until we get to the long range stage & because of the huge point difference the longe range is over the short stages, I win. Even though he beat me every stage except 1, I just have to make sure I stay close enough until we get to the 1 stage I'm better at.

 

[LuckyDucky]

That's true in almost any scoring system

Under a Time+ Total Time scoring system, you could be behind by 1 second on 5 short stages and then win the long stage by 6 seconds and then overall you are ahead by 1 second and you win.



Also, just for terminology,

Match scoring systems are either

"total time" (add stage times)

or "total points" (% on each stage of winner and then awarded points for the stage and then add stage points)

Stage scoring systems are either "time+" or "hit factor"

Anything else?

 

[Wall]

That's exactly my point Spencer.
With non weighted stages that's not the case.

Weighted stages, all you have to do is crush the big stage & your gold

 

[LuckyDucky]

That's exactly my point Spencer.
With non weighted stages that's not the case.

You mean assigning every stage an equal weight (all worth 100 points)?

 

[LoganbillJ]

Weighted stages reward a long stage shooter over the rest of the match. If your match is all long stages, no biggie. But matches are primarily 1 long stage with the rest short stages.

Lets say jesse sucks at long range but is good with a shotgun & pistol & I suck at shotgun but am good with long range & pistol. He beats me the entire match until we get to the long range stage & because of the huge point difference the longe range is over the short stages, I win. Even though he beat me every stage except 1, I just have to make sure I stay close enough until we get to the 1 stage I'm better at.

Not necessarily. It will all depend on how much of the long range rifle stage is long range rifle. In the example I show above, I would consider it our "rifle stage" for this match, if you look at the actual points break down rifle only accounts for 56 of the 172 points for the stage, pistol is 26, and shotgun is 70. Having a weighted stage doesn't necessarily mean the longest stage(time wise) will have the most points. All will come down to the amount of targets on the stage and the difficulty of them.

Our longest stage for this month is stage 1. It is very target rich, lots of shotgun, lots of pistol, and rifle targets at 75yds and in. Point values for each gun is 60, 70, and 70. An even match-up across the board.

Every scoring system has its faults, no doubt about it. The more I look at this system, the more I like it.

 

[jtischauser]

So he can beat me on every other stage of a 6 stage match by say 10 points, but I beat him by 58 points on the long stage as in the example above & I win the match. Even though he has me 5 stages to 1?

Doesn't sound much different than cumulative time.

Having points per target makes the big stages worth more because they have more targets not necessarily more time. If you win big stages you get more points which is similar to cumulative time scoring.

What we are trying to eliminate is making every stage 100 match points even when those stages maybe very different tests of different skill sets.

The question should be what happens when shooter #3 has a 15 second malfunction on any of those stages. Does one scoring system effect the outcome more than others. Does it hurt or help the shooter more in one stage versus the others.

Obviously you're going to get a lot less points when you have a problem on small point value stages because there are a lot less points to be had overall. But what is the relationship look like?

 

[toothandnail]

While there may be neg. we haven't seen yet, I think this will take the best aspects from both systems.
1. reward the consistent shooter
2. forgiveness for a bad stage

I'm sure we will make some tweaks to the points per target, as we get more match data, but so far I'm not seeing a down side.

We will make a test run this Sat. at our monthly match.

Thanks to Jessie for the seeds for this new endeavor. :good: