TRUBL Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 How nice is that!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EaZeNuTZ33 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 bwhahahahahaha........if this train is gonna derail, it might as well be funny when it comes off the tracks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRUBL Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Austin....in for the win!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJW Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 I've already commented in this thread, but let me try again. In agreement with Austin, long stages are important and short stages are important. The point of any match scoring system is to make sure that no single stage is either over- or underrepresented in the final match score. I think we can all agree on that, yes? Prevailing current systems have flip sides of the same problem. I am going to use Freedom Munitions as an example here, not because I am complaining about the match (it was very good), but because it was fresh in my mind and is illustrative. Stage 7 had a 200yd small, triangular plate rack that, as I heard it poetically put, ate the lunch of a number of shooters, top competitors included. Many par outs. The average score was almost 180 seconds and only 50 out of 170 shooters beat 130 seconds. There were also two stages (8 and 9) that were 3GN classifiers with top shooters around 7 seconds and plenty of scores around 11–13 seconds. Freedom was run straight Time-Plus for the match. Short of a complete crash and burn on the two classifiers, the difference between a blazing run and a bad run (8 seconds vs. 16 seconds, let's say) was worth about the same as 3 extra shots on the Stage 7 plate rack. That is, two whole stages of the match had very little impact in final scoring. If the match had been scored 100 points per stage, you get the opposite problem—one misfire or mag change glitch on a classifier might cost you 5 or 6 seconds, which could mean the difference between 85% and 50%. That is, you would lose 35 match points for a glitch that would literally have been lost in the noise on Stage 7. (Put another way, the entire scoring range on the Stage 9 classifier fits into one Standard Deviation for Stage 7.) The problem that I see with the detailed target point system brought up in this thread is that the closer you manage to model the stages, the closer your final results are going to be to total Time-Plus, because your "worth" estimate of each require shot or target happens to be a close approximation of the time it takes to get a good hit on it. I also think that a good match scoring system should not necessarily be linear (which is what Time-Plus really is–a 20 second stage is worth 1/5th as much as a 100 second stage). This is why I, personally, think the answer is to use normalized points, around a 100 point default, with some tweaking so that harder/longer stages are worth a bit more and easier/faster stages are worth a bit less. If you took Freedom and made most stages 100 points, made the Classifiers 50 points, and made Stage 7 150 points, with the other two long range rifle stages worth 125 points because they were a little easier than Stage 7, I think that'd be perfect. It wouldn't take a spreadsheet, rather just a little bit extra thumbnail approximation by the MD when he builds the stages for Time-Plus/Points in Practiscore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moltke Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Related question - If you had a course of fire that was small, say around 30 sec, and deemed it to be worth 30 match points... And had a course of fire that was big, say around 100 sec, and deemed it to be worth 100 match points... And had a standard 10 sec penalty for a miss... Then on the small course of fire a miss would push you from 30 sec to 40 sec And on a large course of fire a miss would push you from 100 sec to 110 sec ------------------ So in a straight time plus / cumulative time scenario a miss is worth 10 sec no matter the stage But in a match points scenario, a miss is going to be worth 1/3 of the match points on a short CoF and 1/10 of the match points on a large CoF ------------------ So in terms of penalties, is it smart for a match director to have a penalty impact a match differently based on which CoF it comes from? Seems to me that I would rather have penalties and their impacts be universal regardless of the stage - and missing a target or skipping a target hurts equally throughout the match How can this be accomplished in a "match points" breakdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) Check out the individual results and total time for the ProAm. The match was scores using 100 pts per stage but the top ten would be different had it been scored cumulative time. BJ Norris timed out on a long rifle stage and took 30 seconds in penalties and still finished 4th. Browning also had a stage with 30 seconds in penalties but stage points saved him from dropping a spot or two. Interesting stuff. I still dislike the potential disaster factor of the clock running up on you on a short stage when the SHTF. BTW You have to click the individual results link at bottom and type in shooters names to see their total time. https://www.practiscore.com/results.php?uuid=A287C93D-39C3-4B47-AFED-600F74CD4FE8 Edited August 25, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Shot a total time match this weekend. It had been a while science I had. I personally do not care if it is total time or stage points. I am not going to do anything less than my best on a short stage or a long stage so I would expect that not only are all stages important, but that every second I spend on the clock should be counted and valued. Who am I to say that one second on a short stage is worth any more or less than 1 second on a long stage. Should penalties be worth the same pain on different stages, I thought the idea was to not have any penalties, not to lessen the blow when you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling White Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I like matches with single prize tables and I like being able to walk the prize table by my percentage of the overall division winner. Would the proposed scoring system have any impact on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EaZeNuTZ33 Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I like matches with single prize tables and I like being able to walk the prize table by my percentage of the overall division winner. Would the proposed scoring system have any impact on this?I thought I was a fan of this method until I started to consider how someone who wouldn't take top 50 in TacOps could win 1 of 5 spots in Heavy Irons and the 4 other people who were 97% of his score would walk the prize table ahead of 2nd and 3rd place in TacOps who were 90-95% of someone like Greg Jordan or Daniel Horner.The only feasible way I see to make that work is to eliminate divisions and allow a set number of people in limited, Tac, and open. Then you have a bunch of people upset that they have no open gear or no magnified optic/irons gun and are forced into limited or open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moltke Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) I like matches with separate division prize tables and an even distribution of guns & cool stuff. Edited September 3, 2014 by Moltke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling White Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 EZN -There are two possible solutions - take the # 1's (division winners) out of the equation and give them their own prize table or pick a different division. The second option is a decision that you can make or control. Ken - There is no such a thing. It is subjective and the decision about what to place where is arbitrary (random). For example, if TO's dominates in number then the decision to split guns and cool stuff is based on the percentage of those shooting in TO's. It isn't based on skill levels. There are competitors in other divisions that may finish 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th that battled it out only to go away with a doo-daw. while the competitor who finished 20th in TO may get a pretty cool gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Sterling, I would prefer no prize table, but if there is going to be one, I think that the division winners (10 shooters required in each division, if not they get thrown into the closest matching division) all walk the winners table in order of overall finish. The second place finisher in each division be used to calculate the percentages in each division (for table walk only), with all competitors walking in order of percentage in division on a single table. This way a single division winner is not able to skew the results, and all division winners are assured good shit. I also am starting to heavily lean toward the total time, time plus scoring. I like to shoot, I like big long stages with big round counts and LOTS of movement and stupid stuff. Short stages are weak and deserve to count for less, and penalties should have a consistent impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling White Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) I agree - little speed stages are game changers when they have the same point value as a stage 5-10 times the size. Yes sir, if you have a competitor that stomps the rest of the field by a large amount then using the 2nd place finisher is a great alternative. Your idea about keeping it simple with total time is good. Long range or hard targets can simply have added penalty values to stop gaming. Closest matching division - there is some room here for discussion. Heavy optics and Tacops are not that close.... Heavy optics and Limited..... Edited September 3, 2014 by Sterling White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moltke Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Yeah thats what I meant by even distribution. If 50% of a match is TACOPS than that prize table should get 50% of the guns, 50% of the optics, 50% of the certificates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stlhead Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Moltke, here is a scenario for you. A match has 150 shooters, 75 TO, 25 L, 25 O, 25 HM. You split the prizes up in the same ratio and put them on separate tables by division. There are 6 guns and then other stuff. The top shooter in each division gets a gun, then the guy who got second in TO also gets a gun, and the guy who got third. Even if the top three guys only got 50% of the division winner. There have been many times when shooters from limited and even heavy optics would have gotten much better prizes if they had just at the last minute changed from the limited division to TO. The single prize table eliminates this issue. With a consolidated table the guys (or gals) that win go first, then the people that where the closes behind them in the division. It does not matter what place you finish, if you are not first, then you go by your percentage. If there is going to be a prize table then the idea is to reward those shooters that are the most competitive, the closer you are to the top of your division, the better your prize should be. The guy that shoots 99% of the division winner should get a better prize than someone who shoots 90%. And normalizing the order on the second place finisher in each division eliminates the errors caused by those shooters that blow up the curve. All the best prizes should go the best shooters, not just to the guys that choose to shoot in TO. I personally would prefer no prize table at all, but I am in the minority. I think that all of the loot (besides the guns and any cash) should be randomly awarded to those that complete the match and the guns should go to the division winners and those that score the highest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moltke Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I don't understand your scenario but I will re-try later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) I heard the 2nd place guy in TO at Rocky Mountain walked like 25th this year. That outta tell you how well one prize table works. Let's face it there are only a few top guys that shoot the smaller divisions and they would only finsh 85-90% of Horner on their best days if they shot TO. So if you let the guy that finishes 2nd HI or HO or TI behind a guy that would maybe finish top 10 in TO you're giving much bigger prizes to the guys in the unpopular divisions as compared to having everyone shoot one division. Of course Sterling likes that scenario. He finishes 9th in TI at 75% on a good day. If he was in TO that would be like 35-45% of Horner if he was in TO. Edited September 4, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benelli Chick Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I heard the 2nd place guy in TO at Rocky Mountain walked like 25th this year. That outta tell you how well one prize table works. Let's face it there are only a few top guys that shoot the smaller divisions and they would only finsh 85-90% of Horner on their best days if they shot TO. So if you let the guy that finishes 2nd HI or HO or TI behind a guy that would maybe finish top 10 in TO you're giving much bigger prizes to the guys in the unpopular divisions as compared to having everyone shoot one division. Of course Sterling likes that scenario. He finishes 9th in TI at 75% on a good day. If he was in TO that would be like 35-45%. Yeah, but he won a JP set aside among the other prizes for LS only, which is the same prize the 1st place in each of the other divisions took home...so, he did okay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 What is "LS"? I predict another fur ball complements of the pro shooter representing Stag Arms. Nothing like a good old personal attack to get the key boards warm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benelli Chick Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 What is "LS"? I predict another fur ball complements of the pro shooter representing Stag Arms. Nothing like a good old personal attack to get the key boards warm LS is Limited Scope. We call it that because I was sick of hearing "that's not tactical!" So, the division isn't tactical either...it's limited! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Tischauser Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 (edited) What is "LS"? I predict another fur ball complements of the pro shooter representing Stag Arms. Nothing like a good old personal attack to get the key boards warm Nothing personal. Those numbers are pretty close. Last time I shot RM3G I shot HO for same reason. Better prize for less performance. Edited September 4, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Sniff sniff....what ever happened to tactical non magnified. Now my feelings are hurt..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benelli Chick Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Sniff sniff....what ever happened to tactical non magnified. Now my feelings are hurt..... Poor Kurt! Don't let your feelings be hurt! We still call it limited Iron in honor of you...the Iron shooter...okay, we bowed to peer pressure and are allowing 1X's...but you told us to! It's not really Irons, but.... You would've loved one of the pick-up guns this year. It was Iron sights which was VERRRY SCARRRY!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 How about the round count times 2 is the time out in seconds, and the stage point value. You get +5 for each extra round fired over the minimum, .308 and .45s get 1 hit to neutralize, .223 and 9mm 1 A or 2 anywhere. Everyone runs heads up for one prize table filled with all the same prizes which is a magazine, a Dillo and a bottle of Froglube. Targets that don't fall or have no backer are bonus targets. There all the problems of 3Gun solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Ah the simple genius of it all, and we will all drink free Bubble Up and eat rainbow stew!........Unicorn!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now