Surefire World Multigun 2016

[ziebart]

So I could have swore I started a thread for this match last year when registration opened, but I cannot seem to find it. None the less there have been some big changes to the match and I want to make sure the Enos world knows about them. Here is the email that Pete/Dotty sent out.

Important Exciting News!!!
The 2 Biggest Concerns In this match are, the straight time scoring, and Squadding with Friends and Family. Here is what we are planning.

As for scoring, Points seems to be preferred, and this match is for you, so we will be using a sliding points scale that we have been Testing for the last 3 months. The stages will be worth A points Value that will be determined after the Match is complete. At first all stages will be given a 100 point value but upon completion of the match that value will be adjusted to a value representing the actual time the stage took to shoot. This way the 20 sec night stages will be worth considerably less than the 2 min Ironman stages. As I said we Have Tested This and Also converted the scores from Last year to seek out Issues and anomaly's and We are confident this will allow for the Difference in stages and Balance the stages Accordingly.
As for Squadding several shooters want to shoot with friends and I would like there to be an option for that. First off if your a top shooter or Pro you will be shooting on the super squads with no exceptions. The plan is to allow you to choose Pro and we will handle your squadding and schedule. Only Pros shooting in the super squads will be eligible to shoot the final stage for score, as they will have competed on the same stages in the same conditions as their closest competitors. Whats most important here is match equality within the divisions. You may shoot as a Semi-pro, and you will be able to squad on squads 10-15 with your friends and enjoy the match. If you decide not to compete with the Pros and you wish to self squad with your friends you will respond to this E-mail and Dotty Will send you a squadding link after Payment is received.Stay tuned for more info on facebook and an update on the surefirewmg.com webpage

The scoring change was my suggestion based on several threads posted on here about different ways to score a 3gun match. While not perfect, this system addresses some concerns that people have with other scoring types.

- It reduces the affect that one disastrous stage can have on someone's match.

- Weighting the stages prevents a 20 second stage from being worth the same as a 200 second stage as in matches where every stage is worth 100 points.

- Weighting by the top shooter's time reduces the semi arbitrary match director decision that x stage is 75 point while z stage is 125. The MD can only guess what the short stages are and going by the number of guns used is not always a clear indicator as there can be long shotgun only stages in some matches.

- Some may hate it but it does allow for a small amount of suspense that Pete likes as results may change slightly as stages are altered from 100 points to the actual value after last shots fired. It still allows shooters the ability to check scores for any anomalies.

The biggest downside I see is if one shooter absolutely crushes a stage they will not get as many points for it as if they just beat the second place shooter by a small margin. At the same time crushing it would also reduce the second place shooters points. The other downside is we are not able to set the stage points per division. Thus whoever sets the lowest time will have also set the stage points for all divisions. Each division will still have a 100% shooter that will receive all the points, while those lower than them will receive a percentage of those points.

The biggest changes in last years scores were those couple of people that had a squib or other major malfunctions. Everyone else was mostly the same as this system closely mirrors total time scoring.

[StealthyBlagga]

For a variety of reasons (that have been beaten to death already), I'm not a fan of weighting stages differently. I am REALLY not a fan of the MD changing the scoring scheme AFTER the match is over... this creates all kinds of potential for conspiracy theories and unnecessary drama. Even though it is a reasonable drive for me, I won't be participating for this reason. I wish you good luck, though - anyone willing to step up and run another match has my wholehearted gratitude.

Edited July 23, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[mlmiller1]

I am positive I would not shoot a major match where scoring was "adjusted" after it was shot. Been there, experienced that, never again.

Good luck, I am sure it will be a great match & have plenty of entries.

Dont be offended please but I dont trust anyone to change scoring after the fact.

[ziebart]

Nobody will be changing individual scores after the event. What will be edited are the stage points. It is a very visible change and I am not sure how there could be drama. If you have specific examples please let me know. If you have already registered and are going to cancel because of this please let Pete or Dotty know via email or phone call.

I understand wanting every stage to be worth 100 points, but I saw this as a good compromise with total time scoring. If it results in less people wanting to shoot this match compared to when it was a total time match then I am sure it can go back to being a total time match. Remember we are still a couple months out.

[mike4045]

Agree 100%. It's easy enough to say this stage is worth 100, 125,150 points. Not say this 20point stage is only worth 20 points. Good luck with match. Hope it works out.

[AZViking]

For a variety of reasons (that have been beaten to death already), I'm not a fan of weighting stages differently. I am REALLY not a fan of the MD changing the scoring scheme AFTER the match is over... this creates all kinds of potential for conspiracy theories and unnecessary drama. Even though it is a reasonable drive for me, I won't be participating for this reason. I wish you good luck, though - anyone willing to step up and run another match has my wholehearted gratitude.

I think weighting stages is good match design. Having a 2.5 second stage worth the same as a 120 second stage is ridiculous.

[mike4045]

Weighing is good. Before the match.

[mlmiller1]

Weighing is good. Before the match.

I agree. Key being "BEFORE" the match. "this stage is worth 100, this one only 25, this one 200" . As long as it is known ahead of time, weighing stages is a great idea. Anything that is decided after stages are shot has the potential for "shooter favoritism".

Edited July 25, 2016 by mlmiller1

[ziebart]

I do not see how this could be shooter favoritism. Whoever shoots it the fastest will decide how much the stage is worth. The reason not to do it before hand is it is impossible to know exactly how long it will take to shoot a stage. USPSA pistol weights stages by rounds, but that is not effective in multigun.

Using only three different stage weights also limits the effectiveness of the weightings. Though it is easier for the MD to decide before the match if all they have to do is say short, medium, long. That system does favor shooters that know what squads start on long range stages earlier in the morning with less probability of wind. Then those that get hooked up with favorable conditions get an extra bonus that those conditions have a larger affect on their match.

[ziebart]

If you can explain how this could be used to push the MDs favorite shooter up in the rankings please explain. I would hate to create that system. I would like to hear about your experience that you do want to repeat. We can take it to PM if need be.

[BradfromND]

I have no irons in the fire here as I'm not shooting the match, but I will share my opinion. Transparency is key! You say you have a formula figured out that is fair. What's the formula? You want examples of how it cold benefit certain shooters. How about examples from you as to how it wont? The whole thing sounds a lot like the tv show "Who's Line Is It Anyway", "the show where everything's made up and the points don't matter".

Why not 5 points per target? Certain targets can be worth increased points to keep people from shooting once and moving on (ie. Long range steel or spinner). Seems a lot more simplified than once everyone is done, we will hand out points and let the chips fall where they may......

[StealthyBlagga]

I think weighting stages is good match design. Having a 2.5 second stage worth the same as a 120 second stage is ridiculous.

If you can explain how this could be used to push the MDs favorite shooter up in the rankings please explain. I would hate to create that system. I would like to hear about your experience that you do want to repeat. We can take it to PM if need be.

PM sent

[ziebart]

All,

Please note that I am not the MD. I am just trying to help Pete out and spread the word.

Brad,

Please check out the linked spreadsheet for the formula. It is the same formula used for almost every points match (top time/your time)*number of points that stage is worth = your stage points. At SMM3G and most other points matches every stage is 100 points. While I was not there for the origination this is likely due to the ease of math back when scores were tabulated on an abacus. Multiplying by 100 makes it a nice little percent... well kind of. What this system does is change the 100 points to the fastest time on the stage. For example if the top shooter shot it in 23 seconds the stage is now worth 23 points and your percentage would be multiplied by that. The scoring on the stage stays the same as most other 3 gun matches with time being added for failure to engage or misses.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwfinlGN4FLzeGlIZ1d3dlJRSU0 If you download and open in Excel it should have some nice formatting to highlight those people that moved up and down.

I do not see how this system could be abused by the MD to help or hurt individual shooters. Yes some will move up, and some will move down, but the MD does not get to pick and choose. What could happen is they could be lobbied after the match to change how to score the stage/match. If you really believe that a particular MD would be bullied by the shooter, then I would not shoot that match. They would be bullied into calling every alpha mike into two alpha and 180 call into second guessing the RO. Those calls do not make it to the published scores for everyone to examine yet I am sure that they happen.

I understand how anything has the potential for everything. Look at how throwing a stage out can affect the match. Ultimately, I cannot prove a negative. Normally the burden of proof falls on the person stating a claim. I am not claiming this system is free from problems. I am asking what those problems could be. As any stage designer knows that the best design stage with no loopholes when they walked it will be full of them by the time 200 shooters shot it. Please poke holes in this system, but first understand how it works and provide specific holes. The USPSA rulebook is great because it has been looked at for shooters for 30 years. Most of its holes are already patched, or known as a difference of opinion. This idea is new and not tested in a major match.

Stealthy,

Lol. I know why you feel the way you do about every stage being worth the same and they are valid reasons. Your movie reference is perfect. Thank you for the in depth PM.

Edited July 25, 2016 by ziebart

[Chuck Anderson]

I'll take a look at this in a minute. Regardless of the validity of the scoring system, I think it takes away from one of the really cool things Pete did when he started this match. By squadding the top guys together by Division and using straight time you could actually keep score during the match and know who was in the lead. I thought it made for some great excitement on social media while the match was going on. Daniel Horner is in the lead by 3.2 seconds, with Nils close behind and Brian Nelson just 4.8 seconds out of the lead. Etc. You get it. It was easy to understand, made sense and it was correct at the end of each stage. This will take away that ability. We think DH is in the lead, but we haven't done a calculation yet and can't do it until the match is over. But once everyone is done shooting we'll apply some math, burn some incense, sacrifice a chicken and poke a voodoo doll with some needles and tell you who won, (hint, it's Daniel)

[Chuck Anderson]

Looked at it and I just can't see what problem you are solving. Without breaking out my math hat it still seems like if you have an issue on a short stage it's going to hurt worse than a long stage. There are also some really significant swings in your results. 9 places in a 69 person match is almost 15% change. I'd much rather see the stages given some weight value ahead of time if you're going to give them points. I know Pete has enough experience to have a really good idea what the fast time on each stage will be. That would allow for a scoreboard to actually work as well. Keith is ahead by 43 points, with stages worth 230 points left to shoot. I'm just not understanding what this actually solves.

[ziebart]

Please check my math. In the example below a short stage miss loses ~7 points while a long stage miss loses ~10 points. Yes, it means that not every miss is worth the same amount of stage points, but that is the nature of compromise. The problem this is supposed to solve is that some shooters refuse to shoot a total time match until they are on 3GN. I am not sure that this solves that problem, but that was the goal. When I initially presented this idea I did not expect Pete to go for it. I told him it was too complicated for shooters to understand and there would be a lot of backlash. All that happened during our local matches, but once people understood it they seemed to like it. No prizes are on the line though so it is not the same as a major.

20 second raw time + 10 second miss (20/30*20)= 13.3 points assuming that first ran the stage in 20 seconds clean
120 second raw time + 10 second miss (120/130)= 110.7 points assuming that first place ran the stage in 120 seconds clean

If SWMG stuck with total time then both examples are exactly the same. 10 seconds is 10 seconds no matter where it occurs. In a match where every stage is 100 points. The argument for 100 points per stage is that on the the short stage the first place shooter shot it 66% better than the other shooter so they should be rewarded with a 34 point lead. That argument may be valid, but it is unlikely that this match will ever be a 100 point match. It is either a weighted system of some kind or a total time match.

20 second raw time + 10 second miss (20/30*100)= 66.6 points assuming that first ran the stage in 20 seconds clean
120 second raw time + 10 second miss (120/130*100)= 92.3 points assuming that first place ran the stage in 120 seconds clean

In spite of what most shooters like, Pete likes to keep the final results a surprise. Thus the final 16 shootout. We may be able to convince him to post results during the match. I agree that it would not be that hard to guess how long each stage will take, but I would rather that final results did not depend on one person's guess. The stage points could be edited during the match as there are the same likely suspects that will set the top time or close to the top time.

Yes there were some big swings in the results in terms of placement. I am not sure on exactly what happened with the +9, but I know Sterling had a squib on a 27 second stage. So instead of adding 183 seconds to his match he only gained 4 points. Still it really hurts his match, but not like total time. Reilly Cupp moved up 9 places and had a 404 second run on stage 9 where top time was 78 seconds. Todd Crow is the anomaly. He did not have one terrible stage that killed his score. Instead it looks like he had several bad runs that did not quite make it to my highlight function of the top or bottom 10% of scores. He is the one who's scores requires scrutiny. I am not saying that he did anything wrong, instead I am saying that I could have botched the scores when entering them into excel. Note that excel will not be used when scoring the match. It was used because of the ease of analyzing the information.

Edited July 27, 2016 by ziebart

[Stlhead]

How about this for a cool scoring twist. The stage that Chuck does the best on in the match gets thrown out, along with any other stage he wins.

[Stlhead]

Or you could just do total time, or points. No matter what you do someone is going to bitch. Do whatever floats your boat and if people don't like it they can piss off.

[logiztix]

Our own 'outlaw' matches have considered adjusting scoring to a new system, based on points that represent the target miss penalty values on a stage. We had a time-plus match with a single long-range stage with two required hits at 300 yards that kicked a couple of otherwise good shooters in the beans. Converting to points with each of the 5 stages worth 100 points didn't especially help. However, adjusting the points of each stage to the penalty value of each miss did. Does that indicate the long range was overvalued? Maybe, unless it means the penalty assigned for a long range miss isn't enough. Maybe it means that each shooter should have gauged the penalty against their talent. Not knowing any of this ahead of the match seems to have the same feel as shooting a group, drawing a circle around it and calling it zeroed.

Here was our test approach to stage point determination:

Total the miss penalty seconds for every planned target on a stage and convert it to points. Everyone knows it up front and only a change to a stage during setup can alter the point value, regardless of how fast someone shoots it.

Example for 3GN scoring values:

>100 yard rifle miss = 10 seconds

>40 yard slug miss = 7.5 seconds

Aerial clay miss = 2.5 seconds

Static steel miss = 5 seconds

Miss on paper = 2.5 seconds

So, a stage with 4 long range rifle hits (40), 2 slug steel (15), 8 poppers (40) and 2 aerial clays (5) is your perfect 100 point stage.

A short, all paper hosing stage with 6 cardboard targets requiring 2 hits (or one A) is worth only 30 points.

The side effect of this is the potential of revealing how skewed some target penalty values may be with the given scoring system. It could also negate the effect of stage procedures such as making someone carry two bags of potatoes 100 yards while engaging said 6 cardboard targets.

At any rate, part of the game is knowing the rules up front and playing it with them in mind for the best personal result. I've shot matches that had my best stage thrown out. I've shot matches where coming in 2nd on long-range was only worth 35% of the points. I've shot matches that had timeouts adjusted between days of shooting. In that case, I could have saved 2 magazines of ammo fruitlessly shooting at a 50 yard pistol plate rack in the dark and would have gladly accepted "you're done" over another 100 seconds of time to waste said ammo. Of course, I could have freely chose not to go to war with it as well.

[Chuck Anderson]

How about this for a cool scoring twist. The stage that Chuck does the best on in the match gets thrown out, along with any other stage he wins.

I already shot that match this month. Didn't like it.

[Stlhead]

We both took a bite from that sandwich!

[ziebart]

Chuck,

For some reason I skipped over your first post. I agree that total time and squadding by division/skill were some of the cool thing about the match. It increased the ability to follow the match. I think that was one of the reasons that 3GN went to it. It is easy to see who is in the lead, and if they will be able to keep that lead. The ultimate in this would be a par system like golf. A stage gets a goal time. If you get under that time then you are below par and have a negative time. If you are above then you have a positive time on that stage. It does not change anything from a total time match, other than the view of the numbers. I don't think it would ever take off as it complicates things for the sole purpose of an audience, something we are likely never to get.

Stlhead,

I wish I had an up vote button for your replies. We could do a match where everyone throws out their best stage. Kinda like the opposite of steel challenge. For some reason I don't think that one would be popular though.

For the record I am fine with total time or points matches. Shooting good stages is shooting good stages regardless of how they are totaled up.

logiztix,

That system is a good way to know to determine a point value for a stage. It approximates the USPSA system where a 32 round course is worth 160 points because each alpha is worth 5 points. While a 8 round course is worth 40 points. While I still have to run the numbers I suspect the "problem" with this system is that it does not track with the total time. The goal of my system was to convert a total time match to a points match as closely as possible.

[Chuck Anderson]

Here's the deal for me. I don't really care what scoring system Pete uses. I'll be there. Anyone who decides to skip a Pete match because they have concerns about total time scoring or whatever is dumb. Whatever system is used, Pete will put on a great match that everyone there is going to have fun at. I have my preferences and stuff I'd like to see, but at the end of the day I'm just one shooter and it's Pete's match to run as he sees fit. I trust him enough to know I'll have a worthwhile match. Without a doubt.

There are plenty of three gun matches out there now. Enough that customers should be able to pick and choose a bit who they want to invest their money with . Who is going to put on a 5 star match, vs spending maybe a little less, and getting a 2 1/2 star boondoggle. I don't have enough time available to waste on lame matches. But I sent my check in for this one on January 1.

[Mbauer67]

Well said chuck, I share the same position on this topic.

[Peter Farquharson]

perhaps a simple modification to the USPSA method..

5 points per target under 75 yds

10 points per targets 76-200 yds

15 points for targets over 200 yds..

Weights it based on shooting skills, rather than stage length and endurance.. just a quick thought..