New 3-Gun Scoring System

[Bryan 45]

You think it's better, go try to sell it to the MDs. I'll go ahead and respectfully decline now.

Of course, we only use the handgun as a bit of an ancillary weapon for our 3 gun matches at Rockcastle anyway.

[MarkCO]

toothandnail, I sent you the stages for the Novekse match. Take a look and I think you will see the options presented give different point values to the shooter based on the target and the platform chosen. Plus, I am designing stages within the constraints of the USPSA rules and stages that have to be approved by and RMI who does not actively shoot 3Gun.

Edited July 23, 2014 by MarkCO

[LoganbillJ]

Mark,

Please read my last post. I forgot to mention optional targets in my OP.

Thanks!

Edited July 23, 2014 by LoganbillJ

[MarkCO]

Mark,

Please read my last post. I forgot to mention optional targets in my OP.

Thanks!

In general, pistol paper and rifle paper have the same value, thus making up for those option stages. Same goes for shotgun/pistol steel. The scoring does not change depending on which gun a shooter chooses. Having the options are taken into account when setting the stage points. Both matches we have held at our range have had option stages. Each option stage was shot in every combination of ways possible. There was no negative effect of our scoring system based on that.

I have at least two, probably three stages where point values would be different based on the choice the shooter makes.

[LoganbillJ]

I assume that is based on target presentation from different locations? Those situations would make things a bit more difficult as far as setting the stage points. And is one thing I had not considered. In that case I would weigh both options. Look at the possibilities for each scenario and decide what to set the points at from there. I don't know what yours looks like but there shouldn't be a huge difference in overall points on those stages should there?

I admit the system is not perfect. Never claimed it to be. I have stated it several times, it is exact reason why I posted this here. To get more input. We have only run this at 1 match.

[alma]

Like I was saying, if you want to do this I think it needs to tie back to the potential miss penalties for each target to make it easier and to make it actually relate to how we typically score the shooters on the stage. You just have too much go on with the many multiple values that won't significantly differ in practice. Differentiate the long range shots based on the enhanced penalty rates for misses and give everything else a standard rating.

[MarkCO]

I assume that is based on target presentation from different locations? Those situations would make things a bit more difficult as far as setting the stage points. And is one thing I had not considered. In that case I would weigh both options. Look at the possibilities for each scenario and decide what to set the points at from there. I don't know what yours looks like but there shouldn't be a huge difference in overall points on those stages should there?

Different guns and different locations. I just added up one stage I designed shot with the most points, then the least points and ended up with an 11% difference in points with your system, and that is not accounting for hardcover on some full sized paper.

[EaZeNuTZ33]

You think it's better, go try to sell it to the MDs. I'll go ahead and respectfully decline now.

Of course, we only use the handgun as a bit of an ancillary weapon for our 3 gun matches at Rockcastle anyway.

I'm not the best pistol shooter, though I've been trying hard to improve on that.......maybe the focus on letting me shoot long guns is why I keep scheduling matches at Rockcastle? I thought it was the hospitality and company all this time.

As for the scoring....it worked well in the match we shot last weekend and had no effect upon the TacOps scores at least. It did not add any extra work on the scoring during the match from what I could tell.

It is definitely NOT perfect, but I think it may be a step in the right direction. I'm not a fan of the USPSA hit factor style of scoring personally, as it adds way too much time in scoring stages and finalizing scoring after the match, and originally was not a fan of the Horner method of scoring paper targets when I was first going to Blue Ridge (I ignored my worries and seemed to hit mostly alphas when I quit focusing on it) where it did seem to add some time to scoring, but I do think assessing value to the targets to slightly change stage values is a good practice. I would personally prefer to see each target be assessed a value based upon the max number of shots required for the targets....2 shots (paper) would receive 2pts per shot for a total of 4, knockdown steel would be 1 shot (2 pts), clays would be 1 shot (2 pts), a spinner calibrated to spin with 3 shots would be 6 pts, a texas star would be 5 targets at 1 shot each (10 pts). I wouldnt add any pts for transitions necessarily. When accounting for skipping long range steel, keep your FTN penalties higher for 200yd+ targets just like has been done in the past. Now that I'm more familiar with the Horner scoring of adding time for Charlies and Deltas....dare I say that if there was a FAST and efficient way to use that model in practiscore, I wouldn't be opposed to it?

[MarkCO]

I like Horner scoring too, but it does take more time to score and the scores don't get changed anyway. I am pretty sure no USPSA MG matches (at least the majors) have used HF scoring for the last few years.

[El Guapo]

There is nothing wrong with the way matches are being scored now. Sounds like change for the sake of change.

[Moltke]

This may be too simple but what if you weight it this way?

Define the number of rounds needed to complete a course of fire. Targets are neutralized with 2rds on paper, 1rd on steel (near & far), 1rd on clays - simple. It syncs up nicely for a match wide round count, and scoring. Then figure out which targets are “optional”.

16 pistol

14 shotgun

18 rifle

12 optional

CoF total round count is 60rds, and to maintain balance across the disciplines call each round fired 2 points, so this stage is worth 120 points, weighted according to the amount of shooting. Bigger stages will be more points, smaller stages will be less points, type of gun / target being used is irrelevant because what's hard for one person may not be the hard for another so keep the point value flat.

RO’s will record the raw time from shooting, then add in FTN’s and Procedurals. FTN's 50 yards and closer are 10 sec, FTN's from 51-200 yards are 20 sec, FTN's from 201+ yards are 30 sec. Target type and gun used is irrelevant because generally the farther something is away, the longer it should take to shoot, so the longer the penalty should be to miss / skip it. No individual misses - all targets are either neutralized or not.

Then whoever has the best final time (time plus penalties) gets the stage points. Simple time plus scoring weighted by the amount of shooting performed on each CoF. Match directors still have to be aware if their match is "pistol heavy" or "rifle heavy" or whatever, but as long as they're trying to have a even distribution of targets then there's not much more you can ask for.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Moltke

[Stlhead]

I would like to propose two alternate scoring methods as well.

1.Each target engaged but not hit or knocked over + a 10 second penalty, each target not engaged + 15 seconds, each paper target with only 1 non A or B hit is a 5 second penalty. Each spinner not spun is a 60 second penalty. Targets past 100 yards the penalties double. Only 1 penalty can be assessed for each target. The match director shall observe the stages prior to any shooters attempting them and determine the approximate overall difficulty of the stages. For stages that are substantially above the average difficulty of the match the stage points shall be increase, for any stages that are less difficult the stage points shall be reduced. Low time after penalties on the stage gets all the stage points, all others get a portion of the available stage points based on their adjusted time. Most points wins the match.

[Stlhead]

2. Same penalties as above but instead of stage points the match is scored by totaling the time for all of the stages and the lowest time wins.

Variations:

1. Instead of the 2 anywhere to neutralize paper require 1 A or B.

2. Modify the penalties to suit your mood. Perhaps FTE's should be 20 instead of 15 seconds? Or possibly triple the penalties after 200 yards or even 300 yards?

One of these two would probably cover most matches. I would be willing to attend matches that scored either way. As 3gun is by nature "Outlaw" the match director is free to dream up any sort of contrived or arbitrary scoring method that he or she wishes to use. If people like the method they will attend the match, if not the scoring method will change or the match will die. Self correcting problem.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Stlhead

[Moltke]

I would like to propose two alternate scoring methods as well.

1.Each target engaged but not hit or knocked over + a 10 second penalty, each target not engaged + 15 seconds, each paper target with only 1 non A or B hit is a 5 second penalty. Each spinner not spun is a 60 second penalty. Targets past 100 yards the penalties double. Only 1 penalty can be assessed for each target. The match director shall observe the stages prior to any shooters attempting them and determine the approximate overall difficulty of the stages. For stages that are substantially above the average difficulty of the match the stage points shall be increase, for any stages that are less difficult the stage points shall be reduced. Low time after penalties on the stage gets all the stage points, all others get a portion of the available stage points based on their adjusted time. Most points wins the match.

Each target engaged but not hit or knocked over + a 10 second penalty, each target not engaged + 15 seconds, each paper target with only 1 non A or B hit is a 5 second penalty

This is FN scoring

The match director shall observe the stages prior to any shooters attempting them and determine the approximate overall difficulty of the stages. For stages that are substantially above the average difficulty of the match the stage points shall be increase, for any stages that are less difficult the stage points shall be reduced.

This is really very subjective

Otherwise smart to note that specialty targets get specialty penalties.

[toothandnail]

toothandnail, I sent you the stages for the Novekse match. Take a look and I think you will see the options presented give different point values to the shooter based on the target and the platform chosen. Plus, I am designing stages within the constraints of the USPSA rules and stages that have to be approved by and RMI who does not actively shoot 3Gun.

I have printed off the stage discriptions for the up coming Novekse match, I would need some approx range of the targets to check the point value on all stages. most I can probably figure out. Are the stages to scale? If so what is the grid size?

I assume those are the ones ? I haven't received anything.

[TRUBL]

About the only thing I've seen that makes any sense in the scoring process for the time plus scoring, is a point value for the 'perceived' time it should take to shoot a stage.

They did this at the Nordic match back in June.......went something like this: shorter stages were worth 50-75 points, medium stages were worth 100 points, long stage were worth 150 points....may not have been exactly like this....but I am sure that you catch the drift.

On the surface...like I say....makes sense.....the rub is.....the human element and 'perceived time'. If it's not done right.....it could mess up the out come of the match.

Not advocating this.....just saw it used, and pointing it out. I'm pretty happy with what we have now. Typically, the fastest and best will float to the top no matter what.

Like Mark said....if you balance the stages.....it seems to work out well.

Tim

Edited July 23, 2014 by TRUBL

[MarkCO]

The Noveske stages...the grid in the diagrams is 1 yard. Stage 9, the dimensions are there. Stage 10, paper will be about 5 yards beyond the fault line, rifle from 200 then about 170 yards.

Heck, if you want to play with the file after the match, I can get it to you. Since they will all be 100 point stages, you could just apply a multiplier on a per stage basis to see if it changes anything in the overall.

[Alaskapopo]

We have been talking with Jesse Tischauser trying to come up with a better alternative to the current methods available. The general consensus was everyone likes the forgiveness of the 100 point system. The problem is a 50 target, 3 gun stage should not be worth the same as a 10 target, 1 or 2 gun stage. After a bit of discussion we came up with a new alternative to the standard 100 point for each stage.

Using weighted stages, each target gets a designated point value. Point value is determined by the difficulty and time it takes to shoot them. Here are the point values we used at our last match.

Pistol

3pts Full Size Paper

4pts Half Size Paper, Poppers

5pts Plates (6"x6")

Shotgun

4pts Poppers

5pts Plates, Stationary Clays

6pts Flying Clays, Slugs

Rifle

3pts Full Size Paper(inside 20yds)

4pts Full Size Paper(past 20yds), Half Size Paper

7pts Steel to 100yds

9pts Steel 101-200yds

15pts Steel 201-infinity

10pts Gun Transition

We also had a plate rack that was shot offhand that I designated as 10 points per plate.

After the point values have been set, the MD needs to tabulate the number of points for each stage. Time was a concern so I timed myself when calculating the point values. All stages fell in the 1min. 30sec. range. It is very easy to do when you have the WSB sitting in front of you.

For those of you who are thinking this gonna be a nightmare for scoring, its not. Scoring is done the same way we have always done it. FTE and FTN for all the targets. Points values are only there to determine the weight and value of the stage. When using this system you obviously need to have a minimum point value if you have a huge spread on stage lengths. We try and keep them close so the match flows well and does not back up. Our fastest stage came in at 38.46, with our slowest stage at 62.83. These were the stage winners. We ran 5 stages and it worked well.

Attached is the breakdown showing each stage, both with time and weighted points. I have also attached the same showing the 100 point system.

Let us know what you think. The more input there is, the better we can make this.

Thanks again to Jesse T. for all his input and help!

Way way too complicated. The current system while not perfect really is not broke. I prefer the older USPSA hit factor system in some ways but scoring took way way too long vs IMGA.

Pat

Edited July 23, 2014 by Alaskapopo

[Sterling White]

USPSA Multigun uses time plus. No more hit factors.

[toothandnail]

We have been talking with Jesse Tischauser trying to come up with a better alternative to the current methods available. The general consensus was everyone likes the forgiveness of the 100 point system. The problem is a 50 target, 3 gun stage should not be worth the same as a 10 target, 1 or 2 gun stage. After a bit of discussion we came up with a new alternative to the standard 100 point for each stage.

Using weighted stages, each target gets a designated point value. Point value is determined by the difficulty and time it takes to shoot them. Here are the point values we used at our last match.

Pistol

3pts Full Size Paper

4pts Half Size Paper, Poppers

5pts Plates (6"x6")

Shotgun

4pts Poppers

5pts Plates, Stationary Clays

6pts Flying Clays, Slugs

Rifle

3pts Full Size Paper(inside 20yds)

4pts Full Size Paper(past 20yds), Half Size Paper

7pts Steel to 100yds

9pts Steel 101-200yds

15pts Steel 201-infinity

10pts Gun Transition

We also had a plate rack that was shot offhand that I designated as 10 points per plate.

After the point values have been set, the MD needs to tabulate the number of points for each stage. Time was a concern so I timed myself when calculating the point values. All stages fell in the 1min. 30sec. range. It is very easy to do when you have the WSB sitting in front of you.

For those of you who are thinking this gonna be a nightmare for scoring, its not. Scoring is done the same way we have always done it. FTE and FTN for all the targets. Points values are only there to determine the weight and value of the stage. When using this system you obviously need to have a minimum point value if you have a huge spread on stage lengths. We try and keep them close so the match flows well and does not back up. Our fastest stage came in at 38.46, with our slowest stage at 62.83. These were the stage winners. We ran 5 stages and it worked well.

Attached is the breakdown showing each stage, both with time and weighted points. I have also attached the same showing the 100 point system.

Let us know what you think. The more input there is, the better we can make this.

Thanks again to Jesse T. for all his input and help!

Way way too complicated. The current system while not perfect really is not broke. I prefer the older USPSA hit factor system in some ways but scoring took way way too long vs IMGA.

Pat

Which system ? stage points or total time ?

I still can't figure out why people think it's so complicated?

It is/can be, looking at someone else's stage description, trying to figure out how they set up on paper. Distance, what targets you may or may-not be able to see from where. That can take some thinking.

When you, the MD, design a stage , or the MD looking at a finished stage, it's quite simple. I don't know maybe that's too much work?

Playing with numbers from last months match we ,

Gave the 2nd place guy a 180sec time( from 71.26 ) on stage 4, drops him to 3rd.

100pts match he stays in 2nd by 4 points.

Giving the 1st place guy 180sec(from 57.36) time on stage 5 drops him to 2nd.

100pts match he drops to 2nd .

As I said before , the numbers we've run, 1st will be 1st in either system, 2nd usually stays the same. except for major time differences as seen above.

3rd - ?? is where the stage points will screw over the more consistent shooter, VS the guy who can burn down a stage or 2 , as well as tank a stage or 2.

Weighted stages you don't loose the match over a bad stage, (just like 100pt stages) but the consistent shooter will place like he would in a total time match.

Edited July 23, 2014 by toothandnail

[Lead-Head]

Can we add some trigonometry to make it easier?

[toothandnail]

Can we add some trigonometry to make it easier?

Don't get ahead of yourself, show me you can add single digit numbers first .

[J.Schmitt]

About the only thing I've seen that makes any sense in the scoring process for the time plus scoring, is a point value for the 'perceived' time it should take to shoot a stage.

They did this at the Nordic match back in June.......went something like this: shorter stages were worth 50-75 points, medium stages were worth 100 points, long stage were worth 150 points....may not have been exactly like this....but I am sure that you catch the drift.

On the surface...like I say....makes sense.....the rub is.....the human element and 'perceived time'. If it's not done right.....it could mess up the out come of the match.

Not advocating this.....just saw it used, and pointing it out. I'm pretty happy with what we have now. Typically, the fastest and best will float to the top no matter what.

Like Mark said....if you balance the stages.....it seems to work out well.

Tim

We did give different points to the stages at the Nordic Comp Shotgun Match. But I don't know if it would work as well in 3 gun. What we did was assign 5 points for every target. We kept the max at 150 points per stage. We also gave slugs double points.

Jay

[Mbauer67]

I have a much less complicated idea-

no 1 gun stages.

sparse 2 gun stages.

No sub 20 second stages. (No sub 40 seconds stages sounds even better.)

More "marathon of death Blue Ridge field courses"

Problem solved.

As a match director, I'm going to pass on more math.

As a shooter, I just want to pull the trigger.

Bingo, you sir deserve a cigar. If I wanted a sport with to many rules and overly complicated scoring system I would shoot pistol only.

The degree of challenge can be varied greatly with stage design alone, no need to complicate things.

[GentlemanJim]

Best to leave the scoring as is, it works