Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Closing the "actions off the clock" loophole


Flexmoney

Recommended Posts

Everything in our game is meant to be tested on the clock.

We often run into some intense gaming of a stage where a shooter will fire their last shot...thus stopping the clock...and then proceed to actuate a moving target off the clock (multiple examples of this over the years, be it stepping on a stomp plate or pulling a rope...).

I am fine with it as gaming, as it is within the current rules. Then again...

How about we just get rid of it?

I'd propose (rough draft, help it out):

9.3.9 No off the clock actions:

For scoring purposes only, the shooter will not execute any deliberate actions while off the clock (after the last shot is fired). For example, no actuating moving targets.

Please tweak the above, or add a different idea to the discuss if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have to agree with George on this one. This is an issue of stage design more than a rule issue.

I disagree. All it does is encourage stage designers to use poppers to activate movers (with vision barriers to force movement) rather than foot pads.

I like the foot pads. They work well, force movement, and are effective. I don't think we should have to put up hard cover at every possible contingency in order to force people to use them while on the clock, as well.

The interesting thing is the stage that started this discussion offered no advantage to any shooter by NOT activating the foot pads on the clock. Those who chose to do that weren't any faster and gave up quite a few points in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting thing is the stage that started this discussion offered no advantage to any shooter by NOT activating the foot pads on the clock. Those who chose to do that weren't any faster and gave up quite a few points in the process.

So if someone decides to game a stage, but their strategy gains them no advantage (and may in fact be a disadvantage), how concerned are we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the foot pads. They work well, force movement, and are effective. I don't think we should have to put up hard cover at every possible contingency in order to force people to use them while on the clock, as well.

I saw an interesting stage design a few months ago that had a footpad in front of a blank wall at the end of a corridor that activated swingers. There were no other targets to engage while in the corridor. To shoot the swingers, I have to retreat about 25 feet to get to the port where the swingers were available. Since it was a level I match, the WSB stipulated that the swingers had to be activated before engaging. If it were a level II match, I would have "gamed" the stage by shooting all the other targets, and then taken the partially available B/C/D hits from the port, and then done my unload and show clear standing on the pad.

Edited by Skydiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a rules problem. It's a stage design WSB problem.

Let's not dumb it down to the point where freestyle has become totally meaningless.

Are standing and breathing deliberate actions? :devil:

:cheers:

Well put!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting thing is the stage that started this discussion offered no advantage to any shooter by NOT activating the foot pads on the clock. Those who chose to do that weren't any faster and gave up quite a few points in the process.

So if someone decides to game a stage, but their strategy gains them no advantage (and may in fact be a disadvantage), how concerned are we?

That really doesn't address the real crux of the problem, which is competitor action that, if not taken during the course if fire would be a procedural, should be allowed to be completed "off the clock."

I don't think it's a stage design issue at all. I think it is a rule loophole that is unnecessary to see competitors taking "off the clock" actions that are effectively adding points to their score.

It goes to the spirit of comstock scoring that hit factor = points / time. If you're not on the clock, and you're earning points, you're not just gaming the stage--you're gaming the entire comstock scoring system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a rules problem. It's a stage design WSB problem.

It is both.

The two need to mesh up. They don't.

And, frankly...once the stage is on the ground and running...it doesn't matter. It is then a rules problem, for sure.

It's FUBAR...has been for years...lets fix the damn thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who chose to do that weren't any faster and gave up quite a few points in the process.

2 points. I traded two A's for two C's. In the end, there was a faster way to shoot the stage.

It goes to the spirit of comstock scoring that hit factor = points / time. If you're not on the clock, and you're earning points, you're not just gaming the stage--you're gaming the entire comstock scoring system.

Unless it is cited in the rulebook or deemed a forbidden action, intent has no quantifiable or quantifiable value. I had this discussion with someone at the Indi match on Friday...USPSA is a sport, not tactical training.

That being said, I am completely on board with Flex's rule suggestion. A standard set in stone makes it simple to apply it to all competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe the change should be that activators don't have to be activated at all. That removes the "off the clock" action. If the shooter opts to take a [typically] longer/harder un-activated shot vs a more wide-open activated shot, then that's free style. Once the target has been engaged, it's finished. What does activating it accomplish? It seems like this could be adding a rule to protect the "integrity" [for lack of a better word] of another rule that maybe doesn't need to be there...

you could still leave the Level I expection to force activation before engaging, I'm ok with that.

just a thought.

-rvb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All it does is encourage stage designers to use poppers to activate movers (with vision barriers to force movement) rather than foot pads.

There are lot more options than just poppers and foot pads.

If you're not on the clock, and you're earning points, you're not just gaming the stage--you're gaming the entire comstock scoring system.

Just how are you supposed to earn points if you're not on the clock? You can only earn points by taking a shot, which will be on the clock. You can save time, but not earn points, off the clock.

Edited by G-ManBart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who chose to do that weren't any faster and gave up quite a few points in the process.

2 points. I traded two A's for two C's. In the end, there was a faster way to shoot the stage.

It goes to the spirit of comstock scoring that hit factor = points / time. If you're not on the clock, and you're earning points, you're not just gaming the stage--you're gaming the entire comstock scoring system.

Unless it is cited in the rulebook or deemed a forbidden action, intent has no quantifiable or quantifiable value. I had this discussion with someone at the Indi match on Friday...USPSA is a sport, not tactical training.

That being said, I am completely on board with Flex's rule suggestion. A standard set in stone makes it simple to apply it to all competitors.

Flex and I ran over 200 competitors through that stage. I personally observed one person get a pair of charlies, and another person charlie delta. Everyone else who tried that got two deltas. So just so you know, Micah, you're in the minority. I worked the stage all day Saturday and Sunday and saw exactly three charlies issued for that.

If you're not on the clock, and you're earning points, you're not just gaming the stage--you're gaming the entire comstock scoring system.

Just how are you supposed to earn points if you're not on the clock? You can only earn points by taking a shot, which will be on the clock. You can save time, but not earn points, off the clock.

It depends on how you define, "earn points." By avoiding a procedural penalty, you avoid losing points you otherwise would have lost. In this case, the competitors were able to do that off the clock, effectively earning up to 20 points by avoiding two procedural penalties (WSB stated that all activators must be tripped or something to that effect).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe the change should be that activators don't have to be activated at all. That removes the "off the clock" action. If the shooter opts to take a [typically] longer/harder un-activated shot vs a more wide-open activated shot, then that's free style. Once the target has been engaged, it's finished. What does activating it accomplish? It seems like this could be adding a rule to protect the "integrity" [for lack of a better word] of another rule that maybe doesn't need to be there...

you could still leave the Level I expection to force activation before engaging, I'm ok with that.

just a thought.

-rvb

That's good stuff right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who chose to do that weren't any faster and gave up quite a few points in the process.

2 points. I traded two A's for two C's. In the end, there was a faster way to shoot the stage.

It goes to the spirit of comstock scoring that hit factor = points / time. If you're not on the clock, and you're earning points, you're not just gaming the stage--you're gaming the entire comstock scoring system.

Unless it is cited in the rulebook or deemed a forbidden action, intent has no quantifiable or quantifiable value. I had this discussion with someone at the Indi match on Friday...USPSA is a sport, not tactical training.

That being said, I am completely on board with Flex's rule suggestion. A standard set in stone makes it simple to apply it to all competitors.

Flex and I ran over 200 competitors through that stage. I personally observed one person get a pair of charlies, and another person charlie delta. Everyone else who tried that got two deltas. So just so you know, Micah, you're in the minority. I worked the stage all day Saturday and Sunday and saw exactly three charlies issued for that.

So if they weren't any faster, and gave up all those points why would anybody care? If the answer is "because that's not what the stage designer intended" then the stage designer should have done something different. Letting people make poor stage strategy decisions is actually part of freestyle, but we don't normally think about it that way.

I don't really care one way or the other, but it does seem like good stage design can eliminate most of these issues, and most of the time it seems like when folks try these sorts of things they only screw themselves. R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to make sure everyone here is on the same page....

There is no rule which directly requires activators to be activated. If a shooter fails to activate something (preventing a target from presenting itself), there is no penalty for "failure to activate". There are penalties (procedural for FTE and apprpriate misses) applied to the "unpresented targets".

It isn't broken. There's nothing to fix, except maybe weak course design/construction.

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...