1 Sec Per PD Email. Send yours today!

[Thomas H]

2 hours ago, BillR1 said:

Nope, I don't know the reasons for the change. (I think I said that earlier...whatever?)

I don't need to know the exact reason why it was done to have an opinion on whether I like it or not. I like the way the math works out, and the fact that people will need to shoot more for accuracy. That's my opinion. Opinions vary...

You don't know the reason---and you can't think of any problem it is trying to solve, is my point.  Of course you can have an opinion.  But when your opinion is (and I quote you) "I'm 55+...I like the scoring change" because it'll help you in the standings, that's not really much of a reason for the sport as a whole.  And the discussion here really isn't about what'll help you in the standings, but what will be a good idea for the sport as a whole.

"Shoot more for accuracy" --- so you are saying there is currently an accuracy problem, in terms of who wins matches?  Noting that major matches (in which this is most important) show that to not be remotely the case?

Again---saying "shoot for more accuracy" is only solving a problem if the current winners have poor accuracy.  And yet....they don't.  So what you are saying is that you'd like other people to shoot slower, so you place higher, even though it won't actually change the standings at the top?

"I like the way the math works out" ....what do you mean by that?  You like that people will be penalized twice as much as before (when the winners already don't have any accuracy issues, but plenty of people  mid-rank and below already have 10-20% of their final match score being made up of their penalty time), and that you like the match when having a single down-three hit is the equivalent of a procedural penalty?

I mean....if major matches currently don't show any accuracy issues with regard to the match winners, what exactly about the math do you like? 

[ngodwetrust21]

1 hour ago, Thomas H said:

You don't know the reason---and you can't think of any problem it is trying to solve, is my point.  Of course you can have an opinion.  But when your opinion is (and I quote you) "I'm 55+...I like the scoring change" because it'll help you in the standings, that's not really much of a reason for the sport as a whole.  And the discussion here really isn't about what'll help you in the standings, but what will be a good idea for the sport as a whole.

"Shoot more for accuracy" --- so you are saying there is currently an accuracy problem, in terms of who wins matches?  Noting that major matches (in which this is most important) show that to not be remotely the case?

Again---saying "shoot for more accuracy" is only solving a problem if the current winners have poor accuracy.  And yet....they don't.  So what you are saying is that you'd like other people to shoot slower, so you place higher, even though it won't actually change the standings at the top?

"I like the way the math works out" ....what do you mean by that?  You like that people will be penalized twice as much as before (when the winners already don't have any accuracy issues, but plenty of people  mid-rank and below already have 10-20% of their final match score being made up of their penalty time), and that you like the match when having a single down-three hit is the equivalent of a procedural penalty?

I mean....if major matches currently don't show any accuracy issues with regard to the match winners, what exactly about the math do you like? 

Well said Thomas. I appreciate you taking the time to spell that out for the folks in support of the 1 second per point change.

[BillR1]

1 hour ago, Thomas H said:

You don't know the reason---and you can't think of any problem it is trying to solve, is my point.  Of course you can have an opinion.  But when your opinion is (and I quote you) "I'm 55+...I like the scoring change" because it'll help you in the standings, that's not really much of a reason for the sport as a whole.  And the discussion here really isn't about what'll help you in the standings, but what will be a good idea for the sport as a whole.

"Shoot more for accuracy" --- so you are saying there is currently an accuracy problem, in terms of who wins matches?  Noting that major matches (in which this is most important) show that to not be remotely the case?

Again---saying "shoot for more accuracy" is only solving a problem if the current winners have poor accuracy.  And yet....they don't.  So what you are saying is that you'd like other people to shoot slower, so you place higher, even though it won't actually change the standings at the top?

"I like the way the math works out" ....what do you mean by that?  You like that people will be penalized twice as much as before (when the winners already don't have any accuracy issues, but plenty of people  mid-rank and below already have 10-20% of their final match score being made up of their penalty time), and that you like the match when having a single down-three hit is the equivalent of a procedural penalty?

I mean....if major matches currently don't show any accuracy issues with regard to the match winners, what exactly about the math do you like? 

Just...wow! Please show me where I EVER said in this thread that I like the change because it would help ME in the standings. Go ahead, I'll wait...

I also never said there was an "accuracy problem" in major matches. Where do you create this stuff?? 

I have seen several times where the match winner was not among the top 3 in fewest points down. I've won a couple of matches myself where I was not even remotely the most accurate. If I win a match and drop 20 points, and someone else drops 8 points and finishes 3rd, who's the "better shooter"? IMO, that question is open to interpretation and discussion. "Better" is a matter of opinion, depending if you value accuracy or speed more. I simply have no issues with accuracy being more valued than it is now. In many cases, it will HURT me in the final standings. That's OK!

The "math" comment was simply to say that 1 second for 1 point is easier do mentally than dividing by 2. That's it! Again, my opinion.

 

[ngodwetrust21]

33 minutes ago, BillR1 said:

Just...wow! Please show me where I EVER said in this thread that I like the change because it would help ME in the standings. Go ahead, I'll wait...

I also never said there was an "accuracy problem" in major matches. Where do you create this stuff?? 

I have seen several times where the match winner was not among the top 3 in fewest points down. I've won a couple of matches myself where I was not even remotely the most accurate. If I win a match and drop 20 points, and someone else drops 8 points and finishes 3rd, who's the "better shooter"? IMO, that question is open to interpretation and discussion. "Better" is a matter of opinion, depending if you value accuracy or speed more. I simply have no issues with accuracy being more valued than it is now. In many cases, it will HURT me in the final standings. That's OK!

The "math" comment was simply to say that 1 second for 1 point is easier do mentally than dividing by 2. That's it! Again, my opinion.

 

The guy with 20 points down obviously. To beat the other guy, it means his raw match time was a minimum of 6.01 seconds faster. Had he shot at the turtle pace the guy beat shot at, he would have had a lot fewer points down. 

Make it harder next time Bill...

[BillR1]

2 minutes ago, ngodwetrust21 said:

The guy with 20 points down obviously. To beat the other guy, it means his raw match time was a minimum of 6.01 seconds faster. Had he shot at the turtle pace the guy beat shot at, he would have had a lot fewer points down. 

Make it harder next time Bill...

Yep, my score was "better" in that case. Does that mean I'm the better shooter, or simply fast enough to make up for the lesser accuracy. I think that question is open for debate.

Different way of looking at it I guess...people define "better" in different ways. Lots of opinions out there...

[IronArcher]

I would have to go with the guy 6 seconds faster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BillR1]

11 minutes ago, IronArcher said:

I would have to go with the guy 6 seconds faster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

By the current rules, you'd be correct. With the new rules, maybe he beats me. I've won several matches against people that would crush me in a bullseye match. IMO, they're better shooters. I was better at THIS game with the current rules, only because I was faster. With the new rule...I guess we'll see. In any case, I have NO issue "losing" a match because someone was more accurate than me and nearly as fast. 

One of my favorite quotes: "Fast is fine but accuracy is final. You must learn to be slow in a hurry." - Wyatt Earp

[ngodwetrust21]

18 minutes ago, BillR1 said:

By the current rules, you'd be correct. With the new rules, maybe he beats me. I've won several matches against people that would crush me in a bullseye match. IMO, they're better shooters. I was better at THIS game with the current rules, only because I was faster. With the new rule...I guess we'll see. In any case, I have NO issue "losing" a match because someone was more accurate than me and nearly as fast. 

One of my favorite quotes: "Fast is fine but accuracy is final. You must learn to be slow in a hurry." - Wyatt Earp

Tell them to go shoot bullseye then, Bill. That is like saying someone is better than you at basketball because they can hit 100% of their free throws, but you crush them 1 on 1. 

[BillR1]

7 minutes ago, ngodwetrust21 said:

Tell them to go shoot bullseye then, Bill. That is like saying someone is better than you at basketball because they can hit 100% of their free throws, but you crush them 1 on 1. 

Valid point, and I'm not at all suggesting making IDPA into a bullseye match. But I believe the new rule will find (IMO) a good compromise between speed and accuracy. Some will disagree, and that's OK. HQ is going to do what they want. These are all simply our opinions.

[IronArcher]

Exactly.
This is practical/defensive shooting, not bullseye.
Sure, the bullseye guys might be more accurate, but when push comes to shove, I'll take the guy with a quick draw, fast splits, and fast transitions over the guy that takes too long trying to get a perfect center of mass hit.

I have "lost" a lot of matches where I was THE most accurate shooter. Never once did it occur to me that I was a better practical/defensive shooter that the guys that whooped me.
No, it's not a gun fight, but very loosely based on defensive shooting.
I'd rather be the guy who draws and fires a couple of -1 hits in a second, than the guy with a 2.5 second draw but perfect accuracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[IronArcher]

Point being, we shoot this kind of game for many reasons. Fun being very high on the list.
Nothing wrong with bullseye shooting, but it isn't as fun. Every step taken to be more like bullseye with reloads, means less fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ngodwetrust21]

9 minutes ago, IronArcher said:

Point being, we shoot this kind of game for many reasons. Fun being very high on the list.
Nothing wrong with bullseye shooting, but it isn't as fun. Every step taken to be more like bullseye with reloads, means less fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Fun? I thought we were supposed to be super serious when we shot this. I use this as hardcore operator training for real world encounters. Fun... smh (Bill, that means "shaking my head").

[BillR1]

12 minutes ago, ngodwetrust21 said:

Fun... smh (Bill, that means "shaking my head").

That's what it means?? I thought it stood for "straightening my hat". Dang, I learned something today! ?

[LeviSS]

I think emails trying them to convince them to not change are a waste of time.

 

They have obviously put a lot of effort into this new rule set, even designing a new classifier around it, why would they scrap it now?

 

IDPA jumped the shark and some people are going to defend them until the end.

[BillR1]

14 minutes ago, LeviSS said:

I think emails trying them to convince them to not change are a waste of time.

 

They have obviously put a lot of effort into this new rule set, even designing a new classifier around it, why would they scrap it now?

 

IDPA jumped the shark and some people are going to defend them until the end.

True story! To most people, IDPA seems to be generally on the right track. For many others, every move IDPA makes is the wrong one. I get the idea that some folks just need a reason to complain about something, and they get downright indignant when you don't happen to share their distain for a particular rule or idea. It's amusing at times, and this is a good forum for people to blow off steam and speak their mind. I don't take it too seriously...it's the Internet after all. ?

[SACase]

??????

Who said that everybody was going to slow down?

When that logic destroying tone goes off, most people pretty much run as fast as they safely can.

[Brooke]

This is all very curious. I'm sure somebody likes the change and is reluctant to get into this hornets nest. I wish they would so maybe I could find some sanity in this change. It appears to have zero upside. What the actual downside will be is still undetermined.

The PCC change will never take hold because of the 10 round limit. It's hard as hell to reload a PCC and doing it every 10 rounds will not encourage people to shoot it. 

Somebody please tell me why the 1 sec =1pt makes sense. Not I don't care, what is driving it.

[ngodwetrust21]

Agreed. Allowing PCC and then restricting it to 10 rounds just makes my head spin. I didn't comment on that in my email though. Just commented on the 1 second deal.

Someone back Bill up here. He is championing the rule change all by himself over here.

[rowdyb]

There is zero transparency in IDPA about how these rules are derived. Time and time again, the question is raised, "who thought of this? why is this an issue? what problem is this solving?" And the reply from HQ is crickets or vague at best.

Is there a tiger team for rules alone? Is there a rules committee? Does this happen when Robert Ray and a few chosen AC's get together and have a conversation? Who EXACTLY proposes and makes the rules? There is no identifiable process for members to know how rules are derived. And that can only lead to unhappiness and confusion. When there is no reality you're only left with perception.

We're left with stories like 'Wayne beat Bill and he redid the scores to the new way so he'd win and that's how come we have this now.' 1s1pd. Or 'Too many AC's are emailing HQ and complaining that they're getting too many complaints from club SO's about cover calls while reloading behind cover'. flat footed reload. And we are given published replies about accountability, tactical this and that but no real answer.

I've only been in this for 3.5 years but I've shot more matches in more places than 90% of the membership. I can tell you what I see and hear from shooters all over. But I can't tell you a single thing about why I'm seeing a third rule book in that short of time, with revolutionary changes and not just refinements.

[IronArcher]

13 hours ago, SACase said:

??????

Who said that everybody was going to slow down?

When that logic destroying tone goes off, most people pretty much run as fast as they safely can.

When you DOUBLE the penalties for points down, the vast majority will logically slow down a bit to ensure more perfect hits.
It's simple math. If your splits are averaging .25 seconds, and you double that (shooting 1/2 as fast) on shots where you couldn't guarantee a -0 hit, you will be ahead of the game.
If a single -3 hit gives you the same result as a PE. People will slow down.
When you get a bigger penalty for 2 -3 hits than you get for hitting a no shoot , people will slow down.
When adding .45 seconds to your draw but hitting a -0 vs. a -1 improves your score, people will slow down.
Sure, some people will just start dumping more rounds for make up shots or "insurance", but for the most part, people will slow down.

Edited December 2, 2016 by IronArcher

[dhb]

I posted this a few months ago on the IDPA Forum but it's still pertinent.

Let's imagine a gunfight between Mr. Quick and Mr. Accurate. Quick fires a -1 in 1.2 seconds and another -1 at 1.5 seconds. Accurate fires a -0 in 2.5 seconds and another -0 at 3.0 seconds. Under the current scoring Quick beats Accurate by 0.5 seconds. With the proposed scoring Accurate would beat Quick by 0.5 seconds. Who would you rather be in this duel? I'm thinking that Mr. Quick's two rounds into Mr. Accurate's torso might hamper Accurate's impeccable sight alignment and trigger press. If the two -1 hits on Accurate don't cause him to stop pointing his weapon at Quick, Mr. Quick can fire another three rounds into Mr. Accurate's torso before Quick even breaks his first shot (assuming he lives long enough). 

The cops I shoot with all want to be first with shots on target and fire until the threat stops.

Fast and accurate will just beat more people by bigger margins with 1 second per point down.

[ngodwetrust21]

10 hours ago, dhb said:

I posted this a few months ago on the IDPA Forum but it's still pertinent.

Let's imagine a gunfight between Mr. Quick and Mr. Accurate. Quick fires a -1 in 1.2 seconds and another -1 at 1.5 seconds. Accurate fires a -0 in 2.5 seconds and another -0 at 3.0 seconds. Under the current scoring Quick beats Accurate by 0.5 seconds. With the proposed scoring Accurate would beat Quick by 0.5 seconds. Who would you rather be in this duel? I'm thinking that Mr. Quick's two rounds into Mr. Accurate's torso might hamper Accurate's impeccable sight alignment and trigger press. If the two -1 hits on Accurate don't cause him to stop pointing his weapon at Quick, Mr. Quick can fire another three rounds into Mr. Accurate's torso before Quick even breaks his first shot (assuming he lives long enough). 

The cops I shoot with all want to be first with shots on target and fire until the threat stops.

Fast and accurate will just beat more people by bigger margins with 1 second per point down.

Wow... You have put some thought into this. Well said.

Edited December 3, 2016 by ngodwetrust21

[Thomas H]

On 12/1/2016 at 4:13 PM, BillR1 said:

Just...wow! Please show me where I EVER said in this thread that I like the change because it would help ME in the standings. Go ahead, I'll wait...

I also never said there was an "accuracy problem" in major matches. Where do you create this stuff?? 

I have seen several times where the match winner was not among the top 3 in fewest points down. I've won a couple of matches myself where I was not even remotely the most accurate. If I win a match and drop 20 points, and someone else drops 8 points and finishes 3rd, who's the "better shooter"? IMO, that question is open to interpretation and discussion. "Better" is a matter of opinion, depending if you value accuracy or speed more. I simply have no issues with accuracy being more valued than it is now. In many cases, it will HURT me in the final standings. That's OK!

The "math" comment was simply to say that 1 second for 1 point is easier do mentally than dividing by 2. That's it! Again, my opinion.

 

BillR said:  "I'm 55+...I like the scoring change."

....you realize that everyone understood that you meant it would help you because you are older, right?  That would be where you admitted you liked the change because it would help you in the standings.  Especially since you said:  "If I was guessing, I could imagine that some of the "older" shooters asked for it in hopes of making the game more accuracy-intensive and slower to suit their skillset better. "

You never said there was an accuracy problem?  And yet, you said:  "I like the way the math works out, and the fact that people will need to shoot more for accuracy."

If there WASN'T an accuracy problem, then people wouldn't need to "shoot more for accuracy."  As such, obviously you think there is an accuracy problem.

As for the "top 3 in fewest points down" --- well, that rather depends, now doesn't it?  I've seen any number of matches where there is That Guy who shoots at a pace 3x everyone else, but gets Most Accurate.  (And is all impressed with himself for that plaque, which I don't understand, but hey, it takes all types.)  Just because several people shoot in a manner that doesn't match the intent of the sport and doesn't even come CLOSE to getting them within shouting distance of winning doesn't actually mean that their shooting is relevant.

If you take a look at most major matches, the top shooters have fewer points down than most people shooting the match.  Therefore, they are already being as accurate or more accurate than their fellow competitors.    So, what kind of "shoot more for accuracy" are you wanting?

Or are you attempting to justify sport-wide changes based on what you've seen in local matches, where the people are of wildly differing skill levels and divisions?  You aren't seriously trying to do that, are you?

As for the "math" comment:  1) if you think dividing by two instead of not dividing by two is sufficient reason to double the penalty time for people, then there isn't really anything to talk about, and 2) as has been pointed out, who doesn't use scoring software these days?  (How backward would someplace have to be to NOT use scoring software these days?)  Do you know of a club doing scores by hand, and having difficulty dividing by two?

Let me recap:  You don't know of a reason for the sport-wide penalty doubling, you can't think of a problem that currently exists that this sport-wide penalty doubling will fix, but you like it because you are 55+ and you think this will "make the game more accuracy-intensive and slower".

As a note:  If you win a major match with 20 more points down than the next nearest competitor, then you are SO much faster than the top competition that you deserve to win.  IDPA is supposedly based on self-defense situations and tactics, and if you are THAT much faster than everyone else in terms of getting shots on target, you should be winning.

But....since in major matches, that doesn't happen, I don't see the issue.

 

[Less]

On 11/29/2016 at 4:31 PM, BillR1 said:

I'm 55+...I like the scoring change. 

I thought he meant he was 55seconds on the classifier with the scoring change... 

[BillR1]

23 minutes ago, Thomas H said:

BillR said:  "I'm 55+...I like the scoring change."

....you realize that everyone understood that you meant it would help you because you are older, right?  That would be where you admitted you liked the change because it would help you in the standings. 

 

No, I think what "everyone understood" (and what you obviously missed!) is that I was replying to BRad's comment when he said  "I don't believe for a minute they're gonna stay with the current scoring. The majority of thier membership is 50+. They want to slow the game down. Everyone over 50 that I've talked to about this says pretty much the exact same thing. Something along the lines of "it'll keep gamers from winning based on speed".  

So because I agree with the premise of his comment, I'm in the wrong?? Got it! 

Also, as I pointed out, the rule WON'T help me in the standings in most cases. But go ahead and ignore that comment if you like.

The bottom line is some people like the proposed change, and some don't. I'm totally OK with people having different opinions. How about you?

Have a great day!

Edited December 5, 2016 by BillR1