Why not just add up the hit factors for each stage?

[motosapiens]

I think you're wrong about how standings change as more people shoot the stage. In the system we're discussing, your points on a stage would be exactly the same the second after you shot it, and after the SS shoots it. Overall standings would change as people gain points, but stage scores would be totally unchanged because while the stage winner's HF would be an interesting statistic, it wouldn't alter other people's scores (award them fewer points) on that stage.

That's what I said in post #22 above. Currently stage points change with the hhf. In your suggested system, standings would change, but stage points would remain the same.

[motosapiens]

And you are wrong that this idea would give more weight to easier and shorter stages. A HHF stage could be long or short, and "easy" is a completely relative description, and it assumes that all shooters have the same strengths and weaknesses in their game.

That's an interesting assertion. I'd be curious to hear what others think about it.

Do you expect that your suggestion would favor some shooters, or shake up standings at major matches? What would happen if you just took an existing match from last year (nationals or an area match) and computed the top 10 using your system, and compared to how it was scored under the current system?

[UTraab]

Why don't you apply your scoring idea to some matches shot in the past, say Nats, and see what it looks like. I guess you could say that the stages would be different with your scoring, or that maybe the competitors would have shot differently, but it would still be interesting to see the results.

[bikerburgess]

Here is one of the problems I see.

On a short hoser stage a a small error such as a missed grip on the draw may change your hit factor substantially, where as on a 32 Rd field course the same error would be close to insignificant to the hit factor. Same error different cost to the shooters placement in the match.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[Chills1994]

Why don't you apply your scoring idea to some matches shot in the past, say Nats, and see what it looks like. I guess you could say that the stages would be different with your scoring, or that maybe the competitors would have shot differently, but it would still be interesting to see the results.

I actually have looked at past Nat's results. There are a few instances of guys placing in the top five or top ten flip flopping placements or three when you go to cumulative hit factor scoring.

Not to take the wind out of beltjones's sails, but here is my thread on the exact same topic from 2008:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=75752&hl=%2Bscoring#entry876630

[Chills1994]

All the common arguments (or just argument, really) about short standards stand and deliver hose 'em down stages weighing more than the longest field course type stages would seem to be negated by how a match director sets up all the stages for a match.

He could just as a rule of thumb have 3 field course type stages to every 1 of the stand there with your feet planted burn 'em down stage.

I think over time if a match is slanted towards the just stand there, draw, and BRRRRPP! stages, people are going to shy away from that match.

Said another way: who is going to repeatedly want to drive 500 miles for a standards type match?

It'll be a self-correcting problem.

[beltjones]

Here is one of the problems I see.

On a short hoser stage a a small error such as a missed grip on the draw may change your hit factor substantially, where as on a 32 Rd field course the same error would be close to insignificant to the hit factor. Same error different cost to the shooters placement in the match.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Agreed, that is true, but in the current system a minor mistake on a 32 rd field course has a big impact on stage results (and thus match points), and superlative performance on a short speed shoot with a relatively high HF is close to insignificant.

[beltjones]

Another thing this idea does:

Right now they have the SS shoot in the afternoon on the second day. I'm sure this is the case for a multitude of reasons, but one of them could be that if the SS shot in the morning, then it's possible that the results could change by the time the afternoon squads finish. Assuming the match winner is going to come from the SS (which is usually the case), if the SS shot in the morning they would have final results by 1:00pm that would be reliable for the most part, except for instances where guys like Todd aren't allowed on the SS, or Nils in 2010, etc.

So what could you do if the SS finished at 1:00pm? Oh I don't know - how about a shoot off? With the SSs finishing in the afternoon there isn't time for a shoot off, but by moving the SS to the morning session on the last day it could easily happen.

[ZackJones]

I think applying the idea to some actual match data is a good one. My son and I are shooting a match this coming weekend with 6 stages. I'll compare our results using the current scoring method and the proposed method and see if there's any difference in outcome.

[bikerburgess]

The scoring discrepancy between low and high hit factor stages would make it much more like IDPA where you can't win a match on a long course but you can sure loose one on a short course.

As a match director it would limit what I would be willing to try because I would not want the match to come down to one stage.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[beltjones]

Again, both short and long courses can be high hit factor or low hit factor. The number of targets doesn't determine the HF of the stage, unlike the current system in which the number of rounds is the sole determinant of the total value of the stage.

[bikerburgess]

I think applying the idea to some actual match data is a good one. My son and I are shooting a match this coming weekend with 6 stages. I'll compare our results using the current scoring method and the proposed method and see if there's any difference in outcome.

Be sure to shoot the match with that scoring system in mind.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[Chills1994]

The scoring discrepancy between low and high hit factor stages would make it much more like IDPA where you can't win a match on a long course but you can sure loose one on a short course.

As a match director it would limit what I would be willing to try because I would not want the match to come down to one stage.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Everybody who shoots your match has the same chances of success or failure regardless of stage design.

If they suck at movement for field course type stages, or can't hit their grip 100% of the time for a grip it and rip it stage, that's their problem. Not yours.

[22 shooter]

I can't believe I'm the first one to say this. That's the way is was done when I started. I'm pretty sure the reason it canged was because you could tank an 8 round stand and shoot speed shoot and have a hit factor of say. 8, then do great on a 32 round field course and only get 4.5 hit factor. A guy that could stand and shoot small stages could end up with a better score than the guy who won all the field courses

[UTraab]

I think applying the idea to some actual match data is a good one. My son and I are shooting a match this coming weekend with 6 stages. I'll compare our results using the current scoring method and the proposed method and see if there's any difference in outcome.

Be sure to shoot the match with that scoring system in mind.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Aren't we going for the highest hit factor that we can get with either scoring system? How would you shoot differently?

[bikerburgess]

The scoring discrepancy between low and high hit factor stages would make it much more like IDPA where you can't win a match on a long course but you can sure loose one on a short course.

As a match director it would limit what I would be willing to try because I would not want the match to come down to one stage.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Everybody who shoots your match has the same chances of success or failure regardless of stage design.

If they suck at movement for field course type stages, or can't hit their grip 100% of the time for a grip it and rip it stage, that's their problem. Not yours.

that is how it is now, but with only hit factor scores the grip and rip is worth more to your match score. a 5% difference on a 12HF stage is lots more than a 5% difference on a 4HF stage (.6 and .2)

[bikerburgess]

I think applying the idea to some actual match data is a good one. My son and I are shooting a match this coming weekend with 6 stages. I'll compare our results using the current scoring method and the proposed method and see if there's any difference in outcome.

Be sure to shoot the match with that scoring system in mind.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Aren't we going for the highest hit factor that we can get with either scoring system? How would you shoot differently?

I would shoot low hit factor stages somewhat more conservatively because there is so little to gain by a good run and would look for high hit factor stages where I could win the match with a good run and take more chances there trying to win the match. think of it like this three 4HF stages are worth the same as one 12HF stage (regardless of round count) so shoot conservatively on the low value stages and try to win on the high value ones.

[Chills1994]

The scoring discrepancy between low and high hit factor stages would make it much more like IDPA where you can't win a match on a long course but you can sure loose one on a short course.

As a match director it would limit what I would be willing to try because I would not want the match to come down to one stage.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Everybody who shoots your match has the same chances of success or failure regardless of stage design.

If they suck at movement for field course type stages, or can't hit their grip 100% of the time for a grip it and rip it stage, that's their problem. Not yours.

that is how it is now, but with only hit factor scores the grip and rip is worth more to your match score. a 5% difference on a 12HF stage is lots more than a 5% difference on a 4HF stage (.6 and .2)

Tough fecal matter!

I see not much has changed in the 6 years since I first posed the same exact question.

The same old arguments get trotted out.

If you're putting on a 6 stage local club match this month where 5 of the stages are burn 'em down while stationary and just one field course, guess who is not showing up next month???

Whoever that was on the first page who mentioned 3 gun scoring, they got it going on! Two in the

Brown = down, steel must fall to score, otherwise it's a 5 second penalty each time, your score is your time. It makes tallying up the scores really quick. The best part of it: no computer or electronic gadget scoring software needed.

[Strick]

Whoever that was on the first page who mentioned 3 gun scoring, they got it going on! Two in the

Brown = down, steel must fall to score, otherwise it's a 5 second penalty each time, your score is your time. It makes tallying up the scores really quick. The best part of it: no computer or electronic gadget scoring software needed.

And it also takes away part of what makes USPSA what it is.....the accuracy part when shooting fast. It works well in 3gun because weapons manipulation plays a huge part (shotgun reloads, staged guns, grounding) and because of the long range shots.

[bikerburgess]

The scoring discrepancy between low and high hit factor stages would make it much more like IDPA where you can't win a match on a long course but you can sure loose one on a short course.

As a match director it would limit what I would be willing to try because I would not want the match to come down to one stage.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Everybody who shoots your match has the same chances of success or failure regardless of stage design.

If they suck at movement for field course type stages, or can't hit their grip 100% of the time for a grip it and rip it stage, that's their problem. Not yours.

that is how it is now, but with only hit factor scores the grip and rip is worth more to your match score. a 5% difference on a 12HF stage is lots more than a 5% difference on a 4HF stage (.6 and .2)

Tough fecal matter!

I see not much has changed in the 6 years since I first posed the same exact question.

The same old arguments get trotted out.

If you're putting on a 6 stage local club match this month where 5 of the stages are burn 'em down while stationary and just one field course, guess who is not showing up next month???

Whoever that was on the first page who mentioned 3 gun scoring, they got it going on! Two in the

Brown = down, steel must fall to score, otherwise it's a 5 second penalty each time, your score is your time. It makes tallying up the scores really quick. The best part of it: no computer or electronic gadget scoring software needed.

bad matches are bad matches, nobody is arguing that. but the way we are scoring now does a decent job balancing the DVC high hit factor stages tend to be more on the speed end of the spectrum, yes that is something that should be tested in a well set up match (I have run some 10+HF 32 round stages that the shooters said were fun) but you should also test accuracy with equal weight and those stages are not going to award enough points for a better performance to make up for the higher hit factor ones.

yes Multi gun scoring is easy to understand and fast to score and reset stages. but the balance between speed and accuracy is just not there like in a USPSA Pistol match.

[Sin-ster]

I like the idea, in terms of its obvious merits.

Under the current system, I never understood why a miss on one out of 16 targets was penalized more than a miss on one out of 6 targets, provided the HFs weren't terribly different. (7 on the Field Course, 8 on the Medium for example.)

Call me crazy, but I was always of the humble belief that each stage should be equally important-- or much more specifically, each SHOT. (Or draw. Or mag change.) I thought the whole purpose was to test consistency of a skill across an entire match, equitably-- not arbitrarily decide which stages (and thereby shots, mag changes, etc.) were most important based on how the stages were chosen and laid out. (Trust me-- VERY few MDs are thinking about this stuff when they're putting a match together.)

I would, however, suggest an alternative system altogether:

Total points, minus total penalties, divided by total time. One HF for the whole match-- no weighting to any stage, at all.

Thus swinging for the fences and hooking up on one stage is no more notable than tanking one stage. In the end, it's x-number of mistakes for each person, off set by y-number of genius moments by each person.

[CHA-LEE]

For what its worth I pulled together a spreadsheet to list the scoring differences between Match Points and Hit Factor. I used valid match data from the Texas State Open leveraging the top 10 in Limited division as a data set. I have attached the spreadsheet to this post if you want to check it out. My goal was to see if there was a significant difference in the overall percentage of finish, verses the match winner, between the current Match Points process and a Hit Factor comparison. As expected, the results were fairly close when comparing the two ways of scoring. The one thing that I did notice is that when the percentages were very close, within 1 percent, the granularity of who is ahead or behind is less when using the Hit Factor method. This may be a statistical error because I only input data within one tenth of the value. For example, instead of a 10.2343 hit factor, I simply used 10.2. I did the same with the Match points so I figured it would even out, but I think that since the Match points are a greater total value tenths end up being less of an impact verses the lower total value of the combined Hit Factor stuff. I am not saying that one way is better than another. I just wanted to provide some valid data points based on real match data. Do what you want with this data to make your own conclusion.

To me, I think that the Match Point method of tabulating results provides a more granular method of presenting the results. It also makes it easy for shooters to understand how their on target hits, misses, or penalties directly applies to their score for any given stage. For example, It would be very difficult to explain to a shooter how much a Miss actually applies to their scored result when its all based on the high hit factor of the stage and to make it even more confusing the high hit factor for each stage will usually be different. When you can correlate it to match points its a LOT easier for people to understand that a Miss costs them 15 match points. Verses a miss being worth 0.9375 HF on a 10 HF stage or 0.46875 HF on a 5 HF stage. You also can't calculate the true hit factor value of a miss, B, C, D, no shoot or procedural penalty for that matter, unless 100% hit factor for the stage is known, which isn't until the match is over.

Even though the combined Hit Factor results is essentially the same percentage results as the Match Point results, using the Hit Factor method of scoring would make determining the best course of action for a stage a lot harder for shooters to understand. There needs to be an easily understood method for shooters to correlate to their performance, or calculate to figure out the best plan while they are shooting the match. This is easily done by using the Match Points process.

[motosapiens]

Under the current system, I never understood why a miss on one out of 16 targets was penalized more than a miss on one out of 6 targets, provided the HFs weren't terribly different. (7 on the Field Course, 8 on the Medium for example.)

Wait, what? A miss should cost you about the same if the hit factor is similar. Of course the exact amount will depend on how your hf compares to the stage winners hf, but basically a miss costs you 15 pts * your percentage of the winner. So the more you suck, the less a miss costs you because your score sucked anyway.

[Bunchies95]

Call me crazy, but I was always of the humble belief that each stage should be equally important-- or much more specifically, each SHOT. (Or draw. Or mag change.) I thought the whole purpose was to test consistency of a skill across an entire match, equitably-- not arbitrarily decide which stages (and thereby shots, mag changes, etc.) were most important based on how the stages were chosen and laid out. (Trust me-- VERY few MDs are thinking about this stuff when they're putting a match together.)

What about making each stage worth 100 points? Still normalize based off the HHF, but now each stage is worth the exact same amount. That way no stage is a "survival stage" as most low round count stages are treated (can't win the match on them but can lose them). We still test shooting efficiency (points/time), but the match is equally balanced. Either that or have a rule like IPSC does where they have to have a certain blend of long/medium/short courses.

Mostly, I want to see more than the occasional speed shoot or standard in a major match. I personally like the blend (for a 5 stage match) of 1 large field course, 2 medium, one speed shoot and a standard.

[Strick]

Even though the combined Hit Factor results is essentially the same percentage results as the Match Point results, using the Hit Factor method of scoring would make determining the best course of action for a stage a lot harder for shooters to understand. There needs to be an easily understood method for shooters to correlate to their performance, or calculate to figure out the best plan while they are shooting the match. This is easily done by using the Match Points process.

The only way it is easily done under the current system knowing what the HHF is. If you are not shooting with the shooters most likely to set that or they a known top shooter has not shot it gets much harder to get a real idea. Sure you can have a estimate or educated guess but you don't know. When your score is based on the performance of another shooter you don't really have an idea of where you are n the match until their scores are posted.