Can someone explain Why stage points are better than time plus ?

[toothandnail]

So far, I've not seen a good reason for them.

Many times a lower raw score, will lose to a higher score, because of stage points.

Someone who is consistent, but doesn't win any stages, with a lower time + penalties, (maybe consistent top 5 in stage finishes)

will lose to

Someone who may win a couple stages, but have a higher, time + penalties ,( maybe completely blow a stage or 2)

Why is this a BETTER way to score ?

[wgj3]

Time+ does favor consistency for sure, but it also makes short stages irrelevant. I think that usually, the winners are capable of winning in either scoring system. I also believe that the top shooters shoot a little differently depending on how the match is being scored. In a time+ match, all you have to do is win the 3-4 longest time stages and not blow it on the rest of the match.

Long-range rifle stages are generally the longest, so I feel like time+ tends to favor the best riflemen.

Seems to me that stage points is a way to remove some of that skew.

Edited July 14, 2014 by wgj3

[MarkCO]

I assume you mean total time, as opposed to assigning a point value to stages? Both are really Time Plus scoring, it is just what the scoring system does with the "Time plus penalties" stage total for the competitor that is different.

[alma]

I agree that stage points can help to equalize the importance of stages which may take a shorter time to complete and give them more meaning in the overall match. Also, with total time one catastrophic failure, significant penalty, or etc. Can put you completely out of the match even if you performed strongly otherwise.

For example, at the last 3 Gun I attended a GM class pistol shooter caught a controversial 240 seconds worth of penalty on one stage. Because of this when the scores were run as total time he finished 26th. Scoring as stage points, however, would have placed him in the 5th place finish slot.

Also at that match I had a rifle issue that cost me 10 seconds and it happened to be on the Classifier stage. Now, 10 seconds on a long field course may not put me that far behind the leaders from a percentage perspective or when looking at total time but this happened to be on the 3GN Classifier where 10 seconds might easily be twice the time of the stage leaders. Scoring the match as stage points would definitely hurt me much more on this scenario than just having another 10 seconds added onto my total score that I might be able to make up on a longer stage.

Edited July 14, 2014 by alma

[LuckyDucky]

You guys aren't comparing apples to apples here.

It would be more apt to compare Time+ to Hit factor and "Stage+" to Stage points percentage method.

USPSA differs in 2 ways, not one.

It uses hit factor, the stage scoring method of dividing hit points by time. And then it awards points per stage, instead of just adding up hit factors (Stage+).

[wgj3]

I'm not familiar with a scoring method that simply adds hit factors...

[toothandnail]

I should add, I only shoot out-law 3gun, so that is where I'm coming from, and where the question is directed.

[Mark R]

Here is a PDF file containing a short description of time plus vs time plus points. I did not make this, so I can't take credit, but I saved it to help me better understand the difference in the two scoring methods.

Hope it helps.

Time Plus vs Time Plus Points example.pdf

[alma]

Let me try another way. Without stage points, faster stages generally don't have as much significance for the overall match and there is no method to equalize stage importance to some degree. This can help to promote the best well rounded shooters as opposed to total time method which may favor the good long range rifle shooters since that type of stage tends to have an overall longer overall time to complete and much more separation across competitors. The winner of a total time match could easily be average or below average in pistol, shotgun, and faster stages in general.

Also, I think total time is much more harsh on any kind of failure or stage difficulty on a small numbers of stages.

Edited July 14, 2014 by alma

[LuckyDucky]

I'm not familiar with a scoring method that simply adds hit factors...

As far as I know, there isn't one.

I was pointing out that USPSA differs from IDPA 2 ways

1) Stage Scoring (HF vs. Time+)

2) Match scoring (Percentage/Points vs. Addition)

So I guess we can call them HF% and Time++

Mark R's PDF explains the difference a bit.

However, the Time+% in the PDF is STILL different from USPSA because USPSA doesn't weigh every stage equally.

I'm not sure of all the different 3-gun scoring methods out there.

Edited July 14, 2014 by LuckyDucky

[alma]

The principle is the same as what is on the spreadsheet with the big difference being that you are much more likely to get long stages in 3 Gun so it accentuates the total time issue.

[MarkCO]

There is HF (USPSA) which no major has used for over 2 years.

There is Time-Plus where stages are assigned a point value (USPSA, IMGA. Horner and variations thereof) and accounts for the majority of majors.

Total Time. There are very few matches that use this, one being 3GN. Unless all the stages are all close in time (like 30 to 50 seconds), the long stages have too much weight on the outcome, usually favoring the one or two long range rifle stages or maybe also a long all shotgun stage. In a properly balanced match, this tends to make the stages less challenging and similar. If you watch 3GN, you will see the stages are all pretty similar, pretty short targets in more of a drag race format. Using this scoring method at a match like RM3G or Blue Ridge would not be a good idea, or we would not like the stages.

There have started to be new terms made up to define scoring systems, but below is the actual verbiage for "Time Plus" from the USPSA rulebook:

8.3 Time Plus Scoring

8.3.1 Unless otherwise stipulated in the written stage briefing, any cardboard target, designated as a “shoot”

target must be neutralized by either one (1) “A/B” hit OR two (2) hits anywhere inside the scoring perforations on

the target (i.e. minimum 2 “D” hits) to avoid a penalty.

8.3.1.1 Optional scoring - Course description may stipulate that one slug hit anywhere in the

scoring area will neutralize a paper target.

8.3.2 Scoring penalties

8.3.2.1 One C or D hit only = 5 second penalty (Failure to neutralize)

pg. 39

8.3.2.1 No hits on paper target but target was engaged = 10 second penalty per target

8.3.2.3 A miss on a frangible, knock down or self indicating target that was engaged = 10 second

penalty per target. See [8.4.21 thru 8.4.26] for scoring specifics.

8.3.2.4 A failure to engage any target adds a 5 second penalty to any miss penalties for the

target not engaged.

8.3.2.5 Designated “No Shoot” targets that are hit will incur a 5 second penalty for each hit.

8.3.2.6 Procedural penalties (section 4) are 5 seconds added to the shooters time per

procedural(exception 4.2.14).

8.3.2.7 In the course description, long range rifle targets may be designated as enhanced

penalty targets. A miss on an enhanced penalty targets can be increased to a 15 or a 20

second penalty. Only to be used for targets beyond 100 yards.

8.3.3 In order for match flow it may be necessary to limit times per shooter on long range rifle stages and may

be used only for Rifle or Multigun stages that have rifle targets set at least 100 yards away. When the

shooter "times out," the stage is scored as shot including any misses and FTE penalties. The max time is

the time recorded. Minimum time limit is 180 seconds. Time limits should be set for match flow and not

as a penalty for slower shooters or to create a fixed time stage. If not specified, the maximum time for

any stage (including target penalties) is 500 seconds.

8.3.4 Disappearing targets and flying birds. The course description must stipulate if they are to be scored as

bonus targets or as a regular target. Bonus' are scored as time off the shooters stage time and the

amount should reflect the difficulty of the target itself. When scored as a regular target, miss penalties are

applied. No FTE penalty will be applied to a disappearing target.

8.3.5 Power Factors do not apply to Time Plus scoring and there is no minimum power factor.

8.3.6 Stage Points -First Place (lowest time) for each stage, in each division, will receive 100 points; Second

Place and below will figure points on a percentage basis of the 100 from 1st Place.

8.3.7 Total points accumulated for all stages will determine the match placement by division.

8.3.8 Highest score wins.

[toothandnail]

I don't think a 20 sec stage should have the same "points" as along 140 sec.stage.

To me 3gun is about 3 things speed accuracy AND consistency, I think that should be rewarded, more-so than somebody doing excellent, on say 4/10 stages, and average, or worse, on the remaining 6.

If a match is heavy on one particular gun, pistol for example (which most are). A excellent pistol shooter(shooter A) will most likely win that match every-time, over an average pistol shooter(shooter but maybe a better SG and rifle shooter.

Since very few matches(that I've shot) have more than 1 stage that favors a rifle, B can not over come the stage points of A. Even though B may have a better time than A on the rest of the stages, and may only win 1 stage or none.

See attached thumbnail (that's the best I could do for an example) the highlighted, were beat in overall, but placed better in time

I have been on both sides of this coin, I'm just trying to understand why it's better for 3gun, or is it something that was imported from another discipline just because "that's what we're used to".

I can see the benefit in a match that uses only one gun, or uses all 3 evenly .

[alma]

But should that 140 second stage be worth 7 times more than the 20 second?

It means that match performance on the 20 second stage is relatively insignificant.

[MarkCO]

MN 3Gun Group and Horner use a scoring method that is Time-plus and assigns different point values to stages based on target count or stage length. I think Horner uses 100, 125 and 150 points.

[toothandnail]

But should that 140 second stage be worth 7 times more than the 20 second?

It means that match performance on the 20 second stage is relatively insignificant.

Should it be equal ? A 20 second stage is most likely to be a 1 or 2 gun stage, and therefore should not be equal in the overall match, of a 140 sec.

Once again the "reward" goes to a specific gun. Which in my way of thinking rewards a specific skill, VS an overall well rounded skill set.

I wonder if the thinking would change if matches were mostly rifle/SG with 8-12 pistol rounds per stage?

MN 3Gun Group and Horner use a scoring method that is Time-plus and assigns different point values to stages based on target count or stage length. I think Horner uses 100, 125 and 150 points.

THAT makes sense to me.

The current 100 pts for a 20 sec stage and 100 pts for a 140 sec stage does not.

[Mark R]

MN 3Gun Group and Horner use a scoring method that is Time-plus and assigns different point values to stages based on target count or stage length. I think Horner uses 100, 125 and 150 points.

Yes...that's "time plus points" scoring.

[Bryan 45]

Horner uses 100 points for a 1 gun stage, 125 for a 2 gun stage, and 150 for a 3 gun stage. Fortunately, most all stages at Blue Ridge are 3 gun stages.

If you think about stages in regards to percentage instead of time or points, time + points makes much more sense that total time. After all, when a match is over and scores are posted, are we concerned how many points or how many seconds we came in behind the match winner? Or even our placement? Our percentage of the winner is the important measure of performance. It's insignificant to know how many seconds behind the winner a shooter came in on any given stage or overall for the match. A short stage is no different. What's 4 seconds? Or 14 seconds? None of it is relevant unless we know the stage time of the winner. So it all comes back to percentage anyway, and stage points are just a quantifier of percentage.

Of course, this is all assuming that you're not the match winner. After all, most of us aren't!

And this all made much more sense in my head before I typed it..... and my dislike for total time scoring is significant!

Edited July 15, 2014 by Bryan 45

[co-exprs]

Both methods have pros and cons. In general I prefer time + points because it attempts to even the value of each stage. Time + points can bite you just as quickly as total time though. While it equalizes the value of short stages with long stages, it creates a weighted advantage on the gap in short stages and devalues the gap in long stages. As an example... I shot a local match where 4 of the 5 stages were 60-90 sec stages for most competitors. One stage was a 15 sec stage. I edged out my buddy by 5-7% on every stage, clearly demonstrating a higher level of performance in a very wide range of shooting skills and terrain. The last stage was a quick little shotgun stage. My buddy nailed his reload and hit both birds for a 14sec final time. I fumbled my reload and missed one bird. 16sec raw + 5sec penalty resulted in a 21sec final time, resulting in 66.6 stage points. It took me all day to build up my lead, only to loose the entire match with one missed bird. It was a long 3hr drive home and... that's the nature of the game. I learned that day that in Time + points (points based on %) that those short stages are more important to your final standings than the long ones because a few seconds can really destroy your stage points. I now know to factor that into my strategery.

As another example... RM3G 2013. Kuan Watson was working his magic and had the edge over Tate Moots in HM Scope division. On one of the stages most of the top guys were finishing in around 100-110sec. Tate steps up and napalms the stage in 70 some-odd sec, gaining 30-35% on Kuan in one stage. The damage was unrecoverable and Tate won the match even though it could be argued that Kuan demonstrated an overall higher level of performance over the long haul of the match. Not trying to take anything away from Tate. He's an excellent competitor and a really nice guy. Just giving an example of how the point system can work in your favor or can bite you very hard. It's all part of the game though and RM3G is really won or lost on long range rifle skills. Both Tate and Kuan are excellent riflemen and Tate won the rifle game that day.

[Chills1994]

Coming at this from an experimental research and design perspective, time plus scoring is the rawest or purest of data and needs no further manipulation.

[Chills1994]

Arrgghh...how I hate anecdotal evidence!

[MarkCO]

Can someone show me a rule set that defines "Time Plus Points"? The only things I see are Time Plus and Total Time.

[co-exprs]

Isn't time plus points a setting in practiscore?

[LoganbillJ]

Yes. Practiscore gives the option for, time plus(total time) or time plus points (points system)

[MarkCO]

Practiscore is not a ruleset...