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

[motosapiens]

This thread isn't about time-plus scoring. There have been plenty of threads about that.

Let's say your gun breaks a part and locks up, and you can't complete a stage. Why should it hurt you more on a field course than it does on a short course? That's what happens in the current comstock scoring paradigm.

I'm actually liking the idea of normalizing every stage based on a constant.

Because the field course has more shots, so it is worth more? If your gun breaks and you zero a stage, you're done for the overall anyway, so have fun and try to make sure your gun doesn't break in the future. I'm not sure it makes sense to change the scoring system just to make it easier on people who break their guns.

I understand that you may have different preferences than others, but it is interesting to me to learn more about the history of the sport, and find out that the scoring system we have now evolved precisely because of the perceived faults of the previous systems. I'm not self-centered enough to believe that *my* preferences are worth imposing on everyone else, but I don't see how I can go wrong by agreeing with Rob Leatham.

Once again you obfuscate the issue. I'm not advocating for a preference. This is a discussion thread about an idea that occurred to me, and apparently used to be the scoring system in USPSA (IPSC at the time?).

Your comments about self-centeredness are way out of line. I think you are a troll, and I will not respond to you any more because you seem to do this on every thread.

You really have a way of taking everything personally and getting insulted by it no matter how it was worded or intended. Are you by chance my ex-wife?

Personal attacks are a tacit admission that you are getting pwned in the discussion, and don't have anything relevant to add.

Edited April 2, 2014 by motosapiens

[Chills1994]

Maybe somebody brought this up already....

How about take or calculate your hit factor like usual, but then multiple it by the minimum round count (MRC) required to complete the stage?

This just a completely off the cuff stream of concsiousness idea that popped into my head.

And it probably shows.

If you have a 12 hit factor El Prez, just multiply that by 12, which gets you 144

Now take a long field course with a hit factor of 7, multiply that by 32. That gets you to 224.

The longer stage which most of us agree should account for a larger influence in your overall or final standings actually does.

What throws a wrench in the works is those multiple string classifier stages.

Sorry, beltjones, to mess up your thread with time plus scoring, but "two in the brown is down" scoring goes extremely fast and extremely easy.

[Strick]

Maybe somebody brought this up already....

How about take or calculate your hit factor like usual, but then multiple it by the minimum round count (MRC) required to complete the stage?

This just a completely off the cuff stream of concsiousness idea that popped into my head.

And it probably shows.

If you have a 12 hit factor El Prez, just multiply that by 12, which gets you 144

Now take a long field course with a hit factor of 7, multiply that by 32. That gets you to 224.

The longer stage which most of us agree should account for a larger influence in your overall or final standings actually does.

What throws a wrench in the works is those multiple string classifier stages.

Sorry, beltjones, to mess up your thread with time plus scoring, but "two in the brown is down" scoring goes extremely fast and extremely easy.

I think that is a pretty interesting approach. I was thinking kinda the same concept but using the percentage that stage is of the match and that would be your hit factor.

Say a 32 round stage is 10% of the match round count, take your stage HF times that percentage and that is your stage score.

Your idea sounds pretty interesting though.

[rvb]

I think you are obfuscating the issue by introducing slower times and more other mistakes into your math. Why not compare apples to apples and calculate what it costs you per mistake with all other things being equal?

In your example, if you run the exact same time and points as the winner except for a mike/no-shoot (and 1 less alpha), it appears (back of a napkin calculation) to cost you 25 match points on the long stage, and 29 match points on the short stage. Pretty comparable imho.

that's what I noticed as well... a miss on a speed shoot should impact your over-all score about as much as a miss on a field course, and that's what the current system does.

The current Comstock scoring paradigm has exactly the same problem in that "one stage won't mattter and the other would be a catastrophe you could never recover from," it's just flip flopped so the high round count stages are heavily weighted and low round count stages hardly matter.

the current comstock method makes each SHOT have about the same impact on your final score, it's not about one stage impacting your score more than another. It's about making each SHOT on the 32-rnd course impact your final score as much as each SHOT on the 6-rnd speed shoot.

If we went stricktly by HF, then a miss on certain stages could ruin your day where a miss on another stage might barely affect your score.

look at if from the perspective of zeroing a stage. A M/NS and a couple points down on a 6-rnd speed shoot could result in a zero. If that stage had a HF of 10, and two field courses had a HF of 5 each, then those 2-3 errant rounds could result in a loss of 50% of your match. HUGE impact from a couple of rounds To have the same impact in our imaginary 3-stage match, you'd have to zero BOTH field courses, which would probably require over a dozen penalties and many points down. some shots would be WAY more important than others. We don't have that problem w/ the current system.

Most people think the short courses "don't matter," but a miss on one is just as bad as a miss on a field course, currently... the way it should be, imo. it's a wheel that doesn't need re-invented.

your match consists of X number of rounds, not X number of stages...

-rvb

Edited April 2, 2014 by rvb

[leas327]

The big problem I have with the the current scoring system is that my final match score is not based purely on my performance.

That seems like a reasonable point, but the fact that stage designs are all different means your score is never based purely on your performance, but also on the particulars of the stage design.

People keep records for bicycle races on tracks, and they know that someone won the 4k pursuit with a time of 4:15 or whatever. OTOH, when bicycles race on roads, noone keeps track of the total time, and it's just a matter of how far behind the winner they were. When compared to just about every other sport on earth, it makes some sense to me that we talk about steel challenge scores as raw times, and uspsa scores as being relative to the winner.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you how many points I scored in any match I've ever done. All I pay attention to is what my percentage is of the winner. Unless you run the exact same courses over and over, the points are only a tool used to figure out the relative differences.

This whole post misses the point. Whether you look at your total match points or your percentage (the same thing) it is not soley based on how you shot. Your match score is based on how you shot but also how someone else shot a stage since your HF is compared to theirs.

It has nothing to due with all stages being different, just like at a race it doesn't make a difference what the record pursuit, 200m, or 500m time is, what matters is how that person performed on that day against the other people competing that day.

Yes it is.

You are confusing me. You do not want your score to be representative of your performance compared to the winner, Like how you place in a race or do you? In a race, you are scored by where you place against other participants, regardless of whether you are a lap down or ten. Just your placing matters, not how well you performed. Comstock scoring and being given your percentage of the winners score takes into account not your placing, but how well you performed against the top score.

We used to add factors and it doesn't work at all. Any fast stage that has a high hit factor is way more important than a long and possibly difficult stage that will likely have a much lower hit factor. An El Presidente, only 12 rounds in 4 seconds or so would be worth more than 2 or even 3 long 32 round stages.

Percentage scoring awards points by the number of rounds fired and the balance of speed and accuracy. A miss on an el Pres would be worth 3-4 full factor points. A miss on a 32 round stage that took 25 seconds would be worth .6. So you better plan where you screw up! one stage won't mattter and the other would be a catastrophe you could never recover from.

It's like adding up stage placements. It doesn't take into account the severity of the differences in the shooters performance. I won SOF a couple of million years ago because I placed 1st on more stages than Brian did. It didn't take into count the fact that on the stages I was second on, Brian was first and on at least one of them by a huge margin. I still got a 2 and he a 1. I won one more stage than he did and won but he beat me on the stages he won by much, much more than those I beat him on.

If you just add stage factors, you could easily win a match while shooting poorly and inconsistently. This is the exact reason they use the current system. Plus time might be easier but it is essentially the same thing, but it also has problems.

The current Comstock scoring paradigm has exactly the same problem in that "one stage won't mattter and the other would be a catastrophe you could never recover from," it's just flip flopped so the high round count stages are heavily weighted and low round count stages hardly matter.

High round count stages that are hose fests and count more are a stage design issue, not a scoring problem. I shoot at a club that regularly has the closest steel at 15-20 yards with hard cover and no shoots guarding them. Sometimes the only paper on the stage is on activators.

[cnote]

fwiw, I know it's a separate topic, but a few other folks have brought it up; I personally prefer long field courses. I'm quite happy with a ratio of 3 long courses, 1 classifier and 1 standard or short course. I just get more enjoyment for my dollar when there's more movement, more reloads, and more shooting at more targets over a larger area. Not that anyone cares.

X10

Edited April 3, 2014 by cnote

[PistoleroJesse]

I'm for every shot counts the same.

Adding Hit Factors doesn't do it.

If you want to normalize HF to stage round count divided by match round count I'd be cool with that.

As far as the reshuffling with new HHF? It doesn't matter to me.

If you get tied up in that while you are shooting the match you've already taken yourself out of where you need to be too win.