New 3-Gun Scoring System

[Alaskapopo]

USPSA Multigun uses time plus. No more hit factors.

Actually you can still use hit factor in uspsa if the club so chooses

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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

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.

Not worth the headache to complicate it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dave.w223]

Wouldn't a simpler alternative be to just add all your times together and subtract all your penalties?

[alma]

Wouldn't a simpler alternative be to just add all your times together and subtract add all your penalties?

FIFY

[Stlhead]

Or we could not even keep score and the winner would be the one who drank the most beer after the match.

[dave.w223]

Wouldn't a simpler alternative be to just add all your times together and subtract add all your penalties?

FIFY

See, we have enough problems with the simplest math. If it doesn't involve coriolis corrections or cosines for wind drift we will make a mess of it. BTW, can I still subtract penalties for my own scores?

[Sterling White]

Simple match math -

1/3 of the stages rated as easy: 80pts each

1/3 of the stages rated as moderate: 90 pts each

1/3 of the stages rated as difficult: 100 pts each

[StealthyBlagga]

Wouldn't a simpler alternative be to just add all your times together and subtract all your penalties?

This is HUGELY biased towards whoever performs best on long-range rifle... may as well call it 1-Gun and leave the pistol/.shotgun at home.

The problem is not the math - we have computers for that - it is the perception that some targets are more "valuable" than others, and therefore some stages should be worth more than others. Some feel this way, others of us disagree.

[assaulter]

I'm a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. principle.

[StarvinPilgrim]

I'm a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. principle.

I'll have to agree. I'm in favor of time scoring with penalties added & bonus subtracted, but as long as the scoring system is decided upon before the match I'm fine with it.

[MustangGreg66]

This sounds like a lot of work for the MD... I have to admit that I didn't read this whole thread, just too much here. But I will echo the sentiment of some here. It really comes down to stage balance. If all the stages are about the same, then the 100pt per stage is fine, heck even straight time is fine.

It's when the stages are sorely unbalanced in time that a tweaking of points per stage makes it a bit better balanced. Case in point -> club matches with a 3gun nation classifier. If all the other stages are 3gun stage and run 35s-60s and the classifier is a 10s classifier, but all are worth 100pt then one little screw up on the classifier could have a huge impact on standing in the match. This happened to me, where a 2 second jam with the shotgun on a classifier cost me 30 match points and when scored 100pt stages, cost me the match. If the match had been straight time, I would have won. The problem with a straight time match, is that if there are long stages, say 120 seconds or so, then those can negate any short stages that are say, under 20....

There is a balance in there. I think weighing the stages according to the number of targets is better, though this instance is really a lot of extra work and as someone already stated, MDs will do whatever they want. Personally I think they should either make all the stages even, or weigh the stage points to correspond to the number of targets and how long a shooter is expected to take. That kind of approach will hopefully prevent one stage from being weighed much more heavily than others.

[Alaskapopo]

Wouldn't a simpler alternative be to just add all your times together and subtract all your penalties?

This is HUGELY biased towards whoever performs best on long-range rifle... may as well call it 1-Gun and leave the pistol/.shotgun at home.

The problem is not the math - we have computers for that - it is the perception that some targets are more "valuable" than others, and therefore some stages should be worth more than others. Some feel this way, others of us disagree.

The believe by shooters rather some targets should be more valuable than others depends on the shooters skill set. Those that suck at long range rifle tend to want to minimize this skill as much as possible.

Pat

[MetropolisLake]

That's a lot of numbers.

My somewhat newbie opinion doesn't count, but as a .40 shooter even in 3-gun, I wouldn't mind a USPSA style of scoring that gave higher scores to larger calibers, but even that is somewhat of a time consuming chore comparatively when you have to score and record every target. As a family man who works two jobs, I just want to shoot and get the hell back home. It takes enough time already to get everybody through a stage, we've even had local club matches that got cut off where we had to skip I think 2 out of 6 stages due to time constraints. Why make this even worse by introducing more complex scoring? Seems like it would do more harm than good.

Edited July 25, 2014 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[EaZeNuTZ33]

That's a lot of numbers.

My somewhat newbie opinion doesn't count, but as a .40 shooter even in 3-gun, I wouldn't mind a USPSA style of scoring that gave higher scores to larger calibers, but even that is somewhat of a time consuming chore comparatively when you have to score and record every target. As a family man who works two jobs, I just want to shoot and get the hell back home. It takes enough time already to get everybody through a stage, we've even had local club matches that got cut off where we had to skip I think 2 out of 6 stages due to time constraints. Why make this even worse by introducing more complex scoring? Seems like it would do more harm than good.

No power factor requirement eliminates advantage of smaller caliber on every front except capacity...would be EASY to start gaming the system to reward .40 shooters who are still loading mouse fart loads. The idea is to level out the values of the stages, not create ways for additional gaming opportunities.

It's been discussed about potential advantages to shooting .308 in TO/TI if the same 1 hit on paper concession was allowed. Running 110gr VMax's and the new 25rd PMags with 5-6rd extensions means there IS some room for potential gaming there.

[toothandnail]

This sounds like a lot of work for the MD... I have to admit that I didn't read this whole thread, just too much here. But I will echo the sentiment of some here. It really comes down to stage balance. If all the stages are about the same, then the 100pt per stage is fine, heck even straight time is fine.

It's when the stages are sorely unbalanced in time that a tweaking of points per stage makes it a bit better balanced. Case in point -> club matches with a 3gun nation classifier. If all the other stages are 3gun stage and run 35s-60s and the classifier is a 10s classifier, but all are worth 100pt then one little screw up on the classifier could have a huge impact on standing in the match. This happened to me, where a 2 second jam with the shotgun on a classifier cost me 30 match points and when scored 100pt stages, cost me the match. If the match had been straight time, I would have won. The problem with a straight time match, is that if there are long stages, say 120 seconds or so, then those can negate any short stages that are say, under 20....

There is a balance in there. I think weighing the stages according to the number of targets is better, though this instance is really a lot of extra work and as someone already stated, MDs will do whatever they want. Personally I think they should either make all the stages even, or weigh the stage points to correspond to the number of targets and how long a shooter is expected to take. That kind of approach will hopefully prevent one stage from being weighed much more heavily than others.

You are 100% correct, except for the, A lot of extra work part. If 1-2 minutes per stage when setting up the match is, A lot of extra work . . . . . . . . . .

I will say it one last time, then I'm done.

After the MD puts in the EXTRA 10-20 minutes when setting up the match

EVERYTHING else about the match is exactaly the same as anyother match. I really can't figure out why many cannot fathom that

Anyway carry on, we will continue testing and refining at our range.

Edited July 26, 2014 by toothandnail

[Vlad]

So I've read this entire thread and frankly I'm confused as to what you are trying to acomplish. Reading the first post, I'm assuming this is really the motivation for it:

The problem is a 50 target, 3 gun stage should not be worth the same as a 10 target, 1 or 2 gun stage.

If that is the problem you are trying to solve, why not just pre-assign stages a different point value? The MD can make that determination far quicker then trying to figure out targets points, considering unusual ways of shooting the stage, option targets, and introducing a WHOLE new way to game the stages for people with pocket protectors and wrist calculators.

If you don't think each stage should be worth 100pt and then simply make some be worth less.

[kurtm]

After contemplating this for a while, I feel this new system will make the longer "target rich" stages much more important, just like straight time...only buffered a bit. If we are to assign targets a value, "small, medium, and large", we are essentially doing the same thing as IPSC, who does allow for high value targets, so people are talking about making all the stages roughly equal in time....or...like IPSC we could have short courses (small), Medium courses (medium), and long courses (large), and each match can have only a set percentage of each, like 50% short, 30% medium, and 20% long....now our match would have a fairly balanced outcome, one bad short course wouldn't exactly "kill" your match, and one grand long course wouldn't necessarily win it. The good, or bad, part is your match would now need a lot more stages.

I am of the camp like Richard. We came from the martial use of firearms, I know that isn't how people see it now, but that is where we came from. I feel, like Richard, that each skill is equally important. I would propose that being able to draw and engage 3 "targets" at arms reach in around 1.5 seconds is a VITAL skill to have in the martial use of firearms, and would be equal in weight, if not more so, to skill with a carbine engaging 10 targets from 2-300 yards. Yes one bad stage can ruin your match, just like one jam can ruin your life in the example of arms length targets. I like the 100 points per stage, but I also like IPSC/UPSA scoring as well.

I applaud all the attempts at making a better scoring system. I don't see this system as a great replacement for what we already have, but the attempt is a good one and thinking like this helps the sport. What I don't particularly like is that it is being driven by the thought that one bad stage shouldn't ruin a match for a competitor instead of what represents a fair test of skill and equipment reliability across the board.

I liken it to auto racing, If I put a car on the track, and I am winning by a lap, and on the 187th lap of a 250 lap race I blow the motor, I'm done for the day. I don't feel like we need to amortize the time to make me finish higher, after all it was MY skill and MY equipment that caused the failure, not the scoring system.

Side Note: Custer died in a "target rich environment" so make sure your gear runs and you got some skill....and a fast horse wouldn't hurt either!!

[toothandnail]

Kurtm

I'm with you 100% on the total time (motorsport racing background) I'd prefer that over any other system, seems many/most want the "forgiveness " of a stage failure that a point system gives.

So that's where the idea for this came from, keeping it easy for the RO's to score, fast reset of stages (no scrutinizing each target for shot placement)

[GreenDragon64]

I'm for the time plus system.

But have thought about what the scoring and placing would look like if the scoring was done utilizing a standard deviation system weighing each stage equally no matter the length. Five seconds in a long stage would weigh the same as a half second on a quick burner stage.

Anybody else thought of this scoring method?

[kurtm]

Here is another option since we are fooling around with scoring. I tried to paste it in but it wouldn't so here it is as an attachment. Sorry

Red Neck Tactical scoring system.xml

Edited July 27, 2014 by kurtm

[Colodrew]

As a guy who does a lot of RO'ing and entering all of our local match results into practiscore I really appreciate Time Plus with or without points. Simple, fast, and rewards the best shooters.

Everyone gets a chance to shoot the crappy or unbalanced stages equally so my opinion is put your big girl panties on and shoot, shoot fast and shoot accurate!

[T Bacus]

Here's a big match 100 pt stages , I think between 200 -250 shooters (very low rnd count for a big match IMO, but that's me)

10 stages

round count

Rifle 71

Pistol 114 correction 123

SG 81

Pistol is used on all 10 stages

Rifle - 7

SG - 7

Tell me how that is not a pistol biased match ?

I don't find any multi gun match to be 'pistol biased'. Sure it's easier to build round count by throwing more pistol targets into the match but the vast majority of the pistol shots in a match count far less (time wise) to your over-all score than either the ability to reload a shotgun or hit long range steel with a rifle.

Edited July 29, 2014 by T Bacus

[mpeltier]

After reading this thread several times my feeling is the juice ain't worth the squeeze. Current methods work fine with far less complication. If the match seems pistol biased and that intimidates you.....practice more pistol!!

Now if you came up with a scoring method to have me finish ahead of Daniel Horner every time, I might change my mind.

Just design balanced stages and lets shoot...

[Jesse Tischauser]

The point of this discussion like many here on this forum and others is to try to better the sport. Clearly there is a lot of differing ideas on how scoring should be done because we have 4-5 different scoring methods currently in use. I for one am a problem solver and I think there is a best way to do everything. I truly think the sport as a whole would benefit if we figured that out.

Personally I like the 5 points per target/shot method like IPSC uses in shotgun matches. The only issue is that method rewards easier/faster targets because you typically get a lot more of them to shoot than hard/slow targets. We never have as many slug targets or as many long range rifle targets or as many long range pistol shots as we do shotgun plates or hoser paper shots simply because they take too long and we have to design stages that have a bunch of shooting and not a lot of time in them. If we could have the same number of ever target type that would equal things out but that is not plausible. So we likely need increased target values for the slower shooting less prevalent target types if we feel that those targets warrant more value. I don't think we gain much by assigning different values to every possible target we shoot. I just don't think we could get anyone to every agree on the value of each target and the distance we shoot those targets effects the difficulty and speed at which we shoot them.

I do like the extra stage points added for the number of guns in a stage. That idea comes from the Horner scoring where stages are worth 100, 125, and 150. I think 25 match points is a little high for a gun transition though but it is a skill and it has value just like shooting a 600 yard target does.

I don't agree with Kurt's car racing analogy in the event of a gun or mag failure. Simply because in 3-gun we are racing 8-12 different little races not one large one as in auto racing. Sure you can have an equipment problem on one stage and it hurts your outcome but you get to fix it and continue shooting the rest of the stages in a match. This is also the issue I have with total cumulative time scoring. Theoretically in a small match you could double your overall match time by hitting a 180 par time and timing out on a 15 second speed shoot. If stages are worth the value of the targets in each stage then there are limits to how much you can gain and lose on each stage independent of your cumulative time it takes to shoot the entire match.

The match I am helping run uses 100 points per stage. I think it is one of the most flawed systems in current use. But it is also the most common. So we are going to keep using it until we come up with a better alternative.

Interesting discussion to say the least.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser

[bigbrowndog]

According to the people that put matches on Jesse, there is a best way to score things. Its the way they choose to do it, which is why there are 4-5 or 5-6 different scoring methods. the problem with being a problem solver is that you are solving what you construe to be a problem, when others do not. If you truly want to see if your ideas have merit or work, then you need to apply them, either by holding or running a match and using your ideas. much the same way my idea of using softballs for close range knockdown rifle targets, in "my" testing they worked, but on the larger scale they didn't.

your analogy to close range targets is based on "easy" shots but many matches make close shots tough by using no shoots, or awkward positioning, the issue is that every time you do that you need HELP, and lots of it to pick up and set up stages and targets. Far too many people don't want to HELP set up or tear down, far too many people want "EASY", far too many people want to take care of only themselves and thier own concerns, like VIDEOing instead of resetting!!! Far too many people want to armchair quarterback, or keyboard quarterback things without knowing,helping, or showing honest appreciation for the effort it takes.

Everybody seems to want to do what "they" want to do, or have the type of targets "they" want to have, to truly make a match fair across the board, a mix of targets and distances is necessary.

As I said in the beginning, the only way to truly know if your ideas have merit, is to apply them, so step up and run a match. When HPSC folded, you were talking about taking over, at first, then it seemed that you wanted someone else to take over instead?? Step up, run something firsthand, I'm not refering to helping out behind the scenes like with 3rd gen 3 gun, but take the reins be a MD/RM, of a major match. Then you can apply all your ideas,...........

Trapr