Scoring preference and why?

[TheRealKoop]

My problem with total time isnt being forgiven for malfunctions or a bad stage, its that its a poor representation of your overall match in general unless the stages are very similar in size.

You could be a total badass on 4 short stages and beat everyone by 25%, but still get totally blown out of the water if people beat you by 10% on 2 long stages. It favors certain skillsets and had little to do with consistency as is commonly said. Ive used it to my advantage and ive been bitten in the ass by it as well.

That said this new scoring system is interesting. Similar to how USPSA assigns shorter stages less match points.

 

[jtischauser]

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:

It pretty similar to USPSA or IPSC only in 3-gun we don't need hit factor because we don't score the value if the hits on target we just neutralize or not. If you get crazy with with various target point values I fear you system won't be accepted simply because of the complexity. If it's not easily understood it usually isn't accepted.

 

[LoganbillJ]

Agreed. I am trying to keep it as simple as possible. Rifle will always be the most complex due to variation in distance and difficulty of targets. I will post our match results from this weekend showing the raw time and point values as well. If I have time I will run the 100point system side by side like I did in my example. I am hoping everything will work as planned and we can move to a superior scoring system.

 

[LoganbillJ]

Well, the match went great. Here are the scores. I have attached both the new weighted scores as well as a 100 point version of them.

One good point that was brought up was the difference between the stages in weights. Should there be a maximum difference between the weights or should it rest solely on the number and difficulty of the targets?

Any input is much appreciated!

Thanks,
Joshua Loganbill

 

[LuckyDucky]

There should definitely be a minimum. A stage that is only 1% of a 6 stage match is worthless

 

[jtischauser]

If there is a huge discrepancy in points you either have a really big or really small stage.

In my shotgun match I had a two shot stage. Shoot one, load 8, shoot one. In this system it was only worth 5 points. Obviously I was trying to test the shotgun loading skill set. So we arbitrarily decided it was worth 5 points per shell loaded or 40 points.

 

[Dillen Easley]

Well, the match went great. Here are the scores. I have attached both the new weighted scores as well as a 100 point version of them.

One good point that was brought up was the difference between the stages in weights. Should there be a maximum difference between the weights or should it rest solely on the number and difficulty of the targets?

Any input is much appreciated!

Thanks,
Joshua Loganbill

I decided to play with the numbers and weigh in a little here. I took first place in TO at the Lead Farm 3-gun match and won every stage in TO....so I used my stage times, stage points (100pts/stage), and weighted stage points to see how results would have come out for me versus second place......and honestly, there wasn't much difference!

Straight time..... 80.225% of first place
100pt stages.... 82.642% of first place
Weighted ........ 81.329% of first place

Personally, I prefer time plus scoring for scoring individual stages, and either points or weighted points for stages. I am a little leary of weighted stages after being at an early Gateway 3-Gun match where one single target rich 170-220pt stage determined who won the match overall, and the fast burn-em down stages were worth 40-60pts. I won 2-3 of the short stages and got 2nd or 3rd on the big stage and finished 2nd or 3rd, but would have been 1st or 2nd if the stages were weighted the same.

Josh and Matt did things right at Lead Farm this last weekend, and the stages were equal enough in targets to where no one stage was weighted enough over another to make it where that one stage determined if you won or lost the match. As long as MD's followed how they did things, I think weighted stages could be the best option of whats been discussed here!

 

[jtischauser]

I decided to play with the numbers and weigh in a little here. I took first place in TO at the Lead Farm 3-gun match and won every stage in TO....so I used my stage times, stage points (100pts/stage), and weighted stage points to see how results would have come out for me versus second place......and honestly, there wasn't much difference!

Straight time..... 80.225% of first place
100pt stages.... 82.642% of first place
Weighted ........ 81.329% of first place

Personally, I prefer time plus scoring for scoring individual stages, and either points or weighted points for stages. I am a little leary of weighted stages after being at an early Gateway 3-Gun match where one single target rich 170-220pt stage determined who won the match overall, and the fast burn-em down stages were worth 40-60pts. I won 2-3 of the short stages and got 2nd or 3rd on the big stage and finished 2nd or 3rd, but would have been 1st or 2nd if the stages were weighted the same.

Josh and Matt did things right at Lead Farm this last weekend, and the stages were equal enough in targets to where no one stage was weighted enough over another to make it where that one stage determined if you won or lost the match. As long as MD's followed how they did things, I think weighted stages could be the best option of whats been discussed here!

The basis of the argument for evenly weighted stages is that it makes stages all the same value. So you can have a 30 second hose fest count the same as a 259 second long range biathlon. It basically says every skill we test in a 3-gun match is equally valuable no matter the difficulty, the time it takes to do, or the quantity of the skills that are being tested.

The downside of equal stage points no matter how long/short the stage takes it how many/few targets there are is that you can end up having a short one gun classifier type stage worth the same points in the overall match as really complex 3 gun stage.

Cumulative time and target point weighting put emphasis back on the value of the stage being in the target count or time which usually correlate pretty closely unless the stage has a bunch of really easy or really hard targets.

A downside of a cumulative time match is that if things go bad with a malfunction is something similar the time keeps ticking until your last shot. You could theoretically finish a stage with a higher time than the overall match winners total match time.

When you weight a stage by target points you can shoot a stage in 1500 seconds if the SHTF and all you have to lose are the predetermined stage points.

Does that make sense?

 

[Dillen Easley]

The basis of the argument for evenly weighted stages is that it makes stages all the same value. So you can have a 30 second hose fest count the same as a 259 second long range biathlon. It basically says every skill we test in a 3-gun match is equally valuable no matter the difficulty, the time it takes to do, or the quantity of the skills that are being tested.

The downside of equal stage points no matter how long/short the stage takes it how many/few targets there are is that you can end up having a short one gun classifier type stage worth the same points in the overall match as really complex 3 gun stage.

Cumulative time and target point weighting put emphasis back on the value of the stage being in the target count or time which usually correlate pretty closely unless the stage has a bunch of really easy or really hard targets.

A downside of a cumulative time match is that if things go bad with a malfunction is something similar the time keeps ticking until your last shot. You could theoretically finish a stage with a higher time than the overall match winners total match time.

When you weight a stage by target points you can shoot a stage in 1500 seconds if the SHTF and all you have to lose are the predetermined stage points.

Does that make sense?

No doubt about it.....none of the methods are perfect.

I can tell you that most of the better shooters at that match were in my squad, and after winning the 3rd stage in a row, there was only pressure to not screw the pooch on a stage....so I tended to shoot the stages with a safer plan instead of a plan to try and set a record if you know what I mean. With total time, at that point I probably would have taken the same approach knowing I was probably 20-30 seconds ahead of the next guy. With stages all worth 100pts, I probably would have been a little more apt to take risks for a faster time on the last two stages to make sure I either won those stages or didn't lose too many points on them. When you look at the breakdown I did with the math on each type of scoring the 100pt stages put the next shooter closer than any other.....the straight time put him the furthest away after a couple malfunctions and a penalty on the first stage....and the weighted stages were right in the middle. Again, they were all REALLY close IMO, and I think that is, at least in part, due to the Loganbills doing a great job in making sure the variance in point values weren't so big that one stage was a fluff stage and another stage was the match in it's own.


Side note.....the Loganbills are putting on one hell of a good match! I wish the match wasn't on the 16th for the next match, I'll be in Kentucky at 3GN Regional, because I've had a blast at both of the last two matches!

 

[toothandnail]

No doubt about it.....none of the methods are perfect.

I can tell you that most of the better shooters at that match were in my squad, and after winning the 3rd stage in a row, there was only pressure to not screw the pooch on a stage....so I tended to shoot the stages with a safer plan instead of a plan to try and set a record if you know what I mean. With total time, at that point I probably would have taken the same approach knowing I was probably 20-30 seconds ahead of the next guy. With stages all worth 100pts, I probably would have been a little more apt to take risks for a faster time on the last two stages to make sure I either won those stages or didn't lose too many points on them. When you look at the breakdown I did with the math on each type of scoring the 100pt stages put the next shooter closer than any other.....the straight time put him the furthest away after a couple malfunctions and a penalty on the first stage....and the weighted stages were right in the middle. Again, they were all REALLY close IMO, and I think that is, at least in part, due to the Loganbills doing a great job in making sure the variance in point values weren't so big that one stage was a fluff stage and another stage was the match in it's own.


Side note.....the Loganbills are putting on one hell of a good match! I wish the match wasn't on the 16th for the next match, I'll be in Kentucky at 3GN Regional, because I've had a blast at both of the last two matches!

I don't think the weighted stages will ever change the 1st place, VS 100pt, maybe not even 2nd very often.
Probably in a VERY close match it may, with the benefit going either way, where as the 100pt stages will most likely go to the best pistol shooter.

Where we've seen the changes are usually 3rd to 10-15th, weighted stages reward the most consistent shooter, over a guy who can muster 1-2 excellent stages and maybe bomb 1-2

 

[jtischauser]

I don't think the weighted stages will ever change the 1st place, VS 100pt, maybe not even 2nd very often.
Probably in a VERY close match it may, with the benefit going either way, where as the 100pt stages will most likely go to the best pistol shooter.

Where we've seen the changes are usually 3rd to 10-15th, weighted stages reward the most consistent shooter, over a guy who can muster 1-2 excellent stages and maybe bomb 1-2

I agree. I'm looking at this scoring stuff from the perspective of average shooter which is about 90% of the competitors.

 

[LoganbillJ]

I went ahead and crunched the numbers on last months match as well. Biggest change I could see was the bottom 3 guys in open. There is movement in both weighted and 100pt but the 100pt system screws one guy worse.

 

[jtischauser]

Great info! What happens if you give the one of the 1st thru 5th place guys in Tac Optics a 180 time out on Stage 4 or 5 because his rifle failed. Does that change anything?

 

[LoganbillJ]

Great info! What happens if you give the one of the 1st thru 5th place guys in Tac Optics a 180 time out on Stage 4 or 5 because his rifle failed. Does that change anything?

Giving the 2nd place guy 180sec time on stage 4 drops him to 3rd with 596pts.

100pts match he stays in 2nd by 4 points.


Giving the 1st place guy 180sec time on stage 5 drops him to 2nd with 613pts.

100pts match he drops to 2nd with 402pts

 

[LoganbillJ]

Attached are the Excel files from last months match, if you want to play with the numbers a bit.

 

[LoganbillJ]

And this months if you need more data to look at.

 

[jtischauser]

I am pretty certain that the 100 point thing is not the best way to go about things. I'm still torn on cumulative time versus target points and what target points are the best representation of the different target types. I was thinking harder targets need a higher point value but that essentially is what cumulative time scoring does to them because they take longer to shoot making them worth more.

I think this needs to be looked at under a real major match set of results. A match with 200 shooters and 8-12 stages. That way we will see the outliers more closely.

 

[LoganbillJ]

I am in total agreement. I have never been a fan of the 100 point system due to the variation of the stage times over the course of 10 stages.

Most of the point values I just made up as I went along. Trying to weigh the difficulty and transition time for each target. I did factor in having pistol/rifle paper as the same points so when there is an option stage the points would not change when someone decided to use the other gun. Same for pistol/shotgun steel.

If you are still wanting to look at this in more depth. I would suggest we crunch the numbers for the Gen III match and see how the results differ. Not sure what scoring method you guys are planning but regardless it would supply the data needed. I will be ROing, and shooting early so doing a little figuring on stage points won't be an issue. Not to mention I live about 45min from the range.

 

[jtischauser]

I am in total agreement. I have never been a fan of the 100 point system due to the variation of the stage times over the course of 10 stages.

Most of the point values I just made up as I went along. Trying to weigh the difficulty and transition time for each target. I did factor in having pistol/rifle paper as the same points so when there is an option stage the points would not change when someone decided to use the other gun. Same for pistol/shotgun steel.

If you are still wanting to look at this in more depth. I would suggest we crunch the numbers for the Gen III match and see how the results differ. Not sure what scoring method you guys are planning but regardless it would supply the data needed. I will be ROing, and shooting early so doing a little figuring on stage points won't be an issue. Not to mention I live about 45min from the range.

We are using the classic 100 points per stage. Chad is going to do his best to keep all the stages the same length. So it should be pretty good but I think we are going to happen to convince Chad and Jeff to try something else next year.

 

[juniors1911]

Ok ya'll have gone way over my head. I'm going with percentage points per stage because I am the average shooter and with that being said I average at least one tanked stage per match. You can shoot a great match and tank one longer stage and your done with straight time. Just no way to catch up.