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

[co-exprs]

True, but it is a source of confusion.

[Chills1994]

Why do you need a computer software program in order to figure scores/results (rank order shooters)?

[toothandnail]

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.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but, don't both examples show the more consistent shooter ended up loosing because of stage points ? Which , in my lmited experience, I have seen more often.

[toothandnail]

Why do you need a computer software program in order to figure scores/results (rank order shooters)?

Well, in my case I "need " one cause it's faster, less error prone.

Math is hard .

[Jim Norman]

Stage points can work if one assigns point values to stages other than a constant 100 points. one gun 100, 2 guns 125, 3 guns 150 points. One can also asign more points to a more technical stage, say a long range rifle stage vs a short range hoser stage.

[ziebart]

Using points also puts a bottom on the scores if somebody has a meltdown on the stage. A person can only get zero stage points, but the number of FTE's a person can get with a death jam in the beginning of a stage can total more than every other stage time combined.

Problems with using it are bonuses. If there are enough that the winners time is close to zero then it will worsen the gap between shooters. Ironman had trouble with this in 2013. Before I started shooting it was a straight time match and from what I have heard is 1 stage would pretty much determine the match.

[toothandnail]

Using points also puts a bottom on the scores if somebody has a meltdown on the stage. A person can only get zero stage points, but the number of FTE's a person can get with a death jam in the beginning of a stage can total more than every other stage time combined.

That is easy to over come, most matches I've shot have a 300 sec. MAX time , so if you have a major equip failure, you can't get 1000 seconds added to your score

[LoganbillJ]

Using points also puts a bottom on the scores if somebody has a meltdown on the stage. A person can only get zero stage points, but the number of FTE's a person can get with a death jam in the beginning of a stage can total more than every other stage time combined.

The problem I see with the logic of "it saves guys who have malfunctions or meltdowns" is, this is a racing sport. If a race car driver has a bolt break or a tire blow out its on them as a driver or their pit crew.There is no leniency because of that malfunction. In racing you push as hard as you can for every stage or race. If you or your gear is not up to the task, that is on you. There should not be any strategy change because of the scoring system. If there is please explain what changes are made. Maybe i have not been in this sport long enough or just have a different approach. I know when I shoot, I shoot at 100% of my ability for that stage. No, I may not perform at my peak but I always try to. Isnt that the goal in this sport?

[ziebart]

I guess it depends on the match. For example I just shot the Northwest Multigun Challenge and time out was 200 seconds. If the shooter was unable to complete the COF they got all the penalties added to the time to last shot. This means we had a shooter on stage 1 with a total time of 499 seconds when his shotgun puked on the first section and he elected to stop the stage instead of moving on to the other 2 guns. The match winner shot the entire match in 655 seconds after penalties.

[ziebart]

My strategy may change based on the scoring system. A smart driver would do the same. If they have a commanding lead in the last lap they would not try to take the last corner at 100%. Backing off to 95% would reduce chances of failure (crash) and increase chances of winning the race.

Similarly if there is a short shotgun stage with only 9 targets I know that 1 missed round will cause a port load and lose me a large percent of the available stage points. If it is a straight time match its effect on the stage place will still be large, but the effect on the total match is small if the rest of the stages are 50 second stages. Basically this stage won't win a match but it can lose one.

I am not advocating purposely doing worse on any stage, but sometimes a more cautious approach is better.

[toothandnail]

That falls entirely on the shooter. If the MD tries to even things out by scoring , that smacks of "everybody gets a trophy" mentality, or "even playing field" mantra's

The guys stuff broke,

HE elected to stop, instead of mitigating the damage.

100% HIS problem.

I still haven't heard a good reason WHY, in a 3gun match that stage points are better.

Maybe I'm too dense to understand

[ziebart]

You are right it was his problem, I was just showing an anecdote. A MD will not be able to create a system that where the best do not rise to the top. Neither scoring method evens the playing field between shooters of different skill levels.

The only reason to use stage points is to normalize scores/stages, and yet at the same time separate the field on short courses. If you do not want to do that then don't run/shoot a match with stage points. I will shoot most any match regardless of how it is scored. There was one that scored the worst 3 hits on paper and I never went back there though.

[LuckyDucky]

You are right it was his problem, I was just showing an anecdote. A MD will not be able to create a system that where the best do not rise to the top. Neither scoring method evens the playing field between shooters of different skill levels.

The only reason to use stage points is to normalize scores/stages, and yet at the same time separate the field on short courses. If you do not want to do that then don't run/shoot a match with stage points. I will shoot most any match regardless of how it is scored. There was one that scored the worst 3 hits on paper and I never went back there though.

Uh... what? Can you elaborate? lol

[ziebart]

This is getting off topic, but they required that you shoot 3 rounds at all paper and you were penalized for any outside of the A zone kinda like IDPA. So you had 1 A, 1 C, and 1 D you got 2 penalties. Nobody could tell me how much time each was worth though. If you shot extra you also got penalized, so there was no making up any misses. It was really wonky.

[Mark R]

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

MarkCO...see ruleset at Rockcastle ProAm... http://www.rock3gun.com/rules.html section 9.

[MarkCO]

Says "time plus penalties" same as USPSA.

Not a big deal, I just thought I might have missed it somewhere.

I seems Time Plus is really how stages are scored and then it is "points" or "time" used to total match placement.

Edited July 16, 2014 by MarkCO

[Mark R]

yes...it is time plus penalties and the shooter who shoots it the fastest gets 100 points and everyone else is a percentage of that shooter...per stage.

[bikerburgess]

That falls entirely on the shooter. If the MD tries to even things out by scoring , that smacks of "everybody gets a trophy" mentality, or "even playing field" mantra's

The guys stuff broke,

HE elected to stop, instead of mitigating the damage.

100% HIS problem.

I still haven't heard a good reason WHY, in a 3gun match that stage points are better.

Maybe I'm too dense to understand

The biggest reason is in a match where the long range rifle targets are challenging (either small or there are lots of them or the shooting positions are difficult) then the difference between two competitors in total time may out weigh the rest of the match. Say on 5 stages competitor A shoots 30 seconds per stage to competitor B shooting 40 seconds. Now we have a stage with some tough long range targets and competitor B shoots it in 149 seconds and competitor A shoots it in 200 in both cases the machine of victory on the stages is the same percentage but now 5 big stage wins don't equal 1 big stage win. So the match winner may be a great rifle shooter and not really be very good at anything else.

[MarkCO]

So the match winner may be a great rifle shooter and not really be very good at anything else.

Never seen that happen at a major. Too many shooters who are very good in all the skillsets. I went and looked at a few matches I shot recently and played with the scores to get total time placement. In only one case would 1st and 2nd have been reversed, the rest were the same for the top 5. I would have placed a few positions better in a few and the same in a few...never moved down.

[alma]

So the match winner may be a great rifle shooter and not really be very good at anything else.

Never seen that happen at a major. Too many shooters who are very good in all the skillsets. I went and looked at a few matches I shot recently and played with the scores to get total time placement. In only one case would 1st and 2nd have been reversed, the rest were the same for the top 5. I would have placed a few positions better in a few and the same in a few...never moved down.

That sounds about right. The last 3 Gun match I shot at they ran the scores with total time only but I went back and calculated by stage points (as was supposedly required by the ruleset that club followed).

The result was that the finish order from first through fourth place did not change but one shooter moved up from 26th place to 5th. He was an excellent shooter who had one catastrophic stages based on penalties. Going down the list showed some minor variance lower in the ranks but the consistency of the shooters that finished near the top seemed to hold fairly well across either system.

[toothandnail]

That falls entirely on the shooter. If the MD tries to even things out by scoring , that smacks of "everybody gets a trophy" mentality, or "even playing field" mantra's

The guys stuff broke,

HE elected to stop, instead of mitigating the damage.

100% HIS problem.

I still haven't heard a good reason WHY, in a 3gun match that stage points are better.

Maybe I'm too dense to understand

The biggest reason is in a match where the long range rifle targets are challenging (either small or there are lots of them or the shooting positions are difficult) then the difference between two competitors in total time may out weigh the rest of the match. Say on 5 stages competitor A shoots 30 seconds per stage to competitor B shooting 40 seconds. Now we have a stage with some tough long range targets and competitor B shoots it in 149 seconds and competitor A shoots it in 200 in both cases the machine of victory on the stages is the same percentage but now 5 big stage wins don't equal 1 big stage win. So the match winner may be a great rifle shooter and not really be very good at anything else.

That is a good example, and one of the situations I could see a benefit, however, it seems to me that matches are more skewed toward the excellent pistol shooter. There should never be that big a time difference between stages

Which I understand why, there are more pistol targets in most matches, they're easier to design a stage around, reset, score, etc.

So the match winner may be a great rifle shooter and not really be very good at anything else.

Never seen that happen at a major. Too many shooters who are very good in all the skillsets. I went and looked at a few matches I shot recently and played with the scores to get total time placement. In only one case would 1st and 2nd have been reversed, the rest were the same for the top 5. I would have placed a few positions better in a few and the same in a few...never moved down.

Pretty much what I've noticed as well, hence my question of why it's done that way.

The top guys are always gonna be the top, no matter which scoring system used. The points system is more forgiving of a bad stage or 2, than total time. Which, total time, IMO, rewards consistency.