-1 Points down = 1 second?

[robport]

Even though I'm no "tactical" expert or even an advanced shooter, I just have to toss my impressions into the mix. I enjoy IDPA as a very fun pastime and would hate to see my enjoyment of it reduced by the effects of the risks it looks to be taking.

To be truthful, I don’t know whether this is a good change or not. I strongly suspect it isn’t due to the constant churn in rules over the last few years. I also strongly suspect it wasn’t well thought out, since no one can answer the questions about classifications and no one has come forward with any statistical analysis indicating a problem.

I have several concerns and I am sensitive to them because I recognize the symptoms from where I have worked for the last 35 years. Where I work, we are in a state of constant organizational churn due to regularly scheduled leadership turnover and the need for them to make some change so they can go away with an award or medal at the end of their time here. I’ve seen huge reorganizations because of the simple reason that we didn’t have a recent phone book. IDPA appears to have pretty static leadership, but the cavalier attitudes to change (or simply not evaluating the effects and risks) are similar.

Successful improvements are not done by announcing a solution and then seeing what problems it may help with. You may get lucky, but you usually cause more problems than you fix when working that way, (like with the flatfooted reload). This just happens to be a very big fix with many obvious long reaching implications, hence the many unanswered questions.

For successful change, you start with a specific problem you identify, can really describe and verify (with an emphasis on verification, not a few bubba’s drinking some beers at a bar). You then come up with potential solutions (usually by something akin to brainstorming). You look at the potential effects, costs, implications and benefits of each potential solution and throw any out that don’t specifically address the problem you originally had. You weigh the costs and benefits, and make sure the implications don’t cause additional problems past what you can address. That’s all before you try it on a small scale and analyze what happens as a result…all before implementation. I don’t see any of that here so the risk of the unknown effect is apparently large. You don't announce a change of this magnitude without being able to answer questions about the obvious impacts. You just don't.

I also see a huge push, in doing this, by people who could definitely benefit financially by creating more interest in their "tactical" training courses. I'm a little suspicious of the motive. I don't really believe the hyped inference that this is being done in an effort to make me a better shooter so I will survive "on the streets". Sorry, but I don't have enough cool-aid for that.

[alma]

^^^ Well said

[Rob Tompkins]

I took the scores from a recent local area Level II match and calculated "adjusted scores" and compared to orginal scores. 70 of 151 shooters changed finish position - nearly half. Most just went up / down one position but some went up as much as 5 or down as much as 4.

There were some significant changes in awards as well.

Bigest changes happend in Div / Class with large poulations (as you would expect).

Of course this does not account for any changes in shooting style that might have occured due the rule change but it is indicative of who / how many need to change shooting style and that if not you may lose ground in terms of finish postion.

masters adj scores.pdf

Edited October 8, 2015 by Rob Tompkins

[Butterpuc]

I took the scores from a recent local area Level II match and calculated "adjusted scores" and compared to orginal scores. 70 of 151 shooters changed finish position - nearly half. Most just went up / down one position but some went up as much as 5 or down as much as 4.

There were some significant changes in awards as well.

Bigest changes happend in Div / Class with large poulations (as you would expect).

Of course this does not account for any changes in shooting style that might have occured due the rule change but it is indicative of who / how many need to change shooting style and that if not you may lose ground in terms of finish postion.

you make an excellent point there, I have only been looking at using previous scores and adjusting... but shooters will most certainly adjust how they shoot a COF and it may not have as large an impact as I thought.

[Alaskan454]

I took the scores from a recent local area Level II match and calculated "adjusted scores" and compared to orginal scores. 70 of 151 shooters changed finish position - nearly half. Most just went up / down one position but some went up as much as 5 or down as much as 4.

There were some significant changes in awards as well.

Bigest changes happend in Div / Class with large poulations (as you would expect).

Of course this does not account for any changes in shooting style that might have occured due the rule change but it is indicative of who / how many need to change shooting style and that if not you may lose ground in terms of finish postion.

you make an excellent point there, I have only been looking at using previous scores and adjusting... but shooters will most certainly adjust how they shoot a COF and it may not have as large an impact as I thought.

That's going to be a big factor, I recently shot my first ICORE and USPSA matches and the style is night and day. At ICORE you pretty much had to hit the 0 down and still be quick about it, USPSA you could go as fast you you want without missing the whole darn target. I'm thinking the good shooters will slow down that extra split second and get a better sight picture with the rule change.

[Jim Watson]

I am sure that the top shooters who are very conscious of their every move will be able to adjust if required.

A very fast, moderately accurate Master could probably slow down to improve his hits without being noticeable to anybody but his coach.

But there are a lot of people who will get the idea that they must slow down to shoot more accurately and take exaggeratedly long times making the shots.

[Brooke]

Excellent post Robport. It looks as if the private management of IDPA just wakes up with a wild idea every now and then.

USPSA's elected basically volunteer management just can't or won't get anything done. So we have one tops down, domineering management group that could not give a damn about "membership" concerns. Actually calling IDPA competitors "members" is a misnomer. "Members" implies that those who pay have a voice. That is not true in IDPA.

In USPSA the members are members but the management can't or won't manage. Both groups are weak for opposite reasons and both could be eliminated quickly by a well run, membership organization.

[SierraAV8R]

In a world where Spray and Pray has so many fans, asking some one to hit an eight inch target can be a scary thing.

[GOF]

The -1, one second down instead of .5 secs down - will make the game a little bit more like ICORE. There you have to be fast (obviously) but accuracy is more important. Older, experienced, shooters tend to do well there (yes, I have shot a fair amount of ICORE in FL and have a nice trophy... (Classic Division DC)... on the wall).

I tend to think this new rule will slow down the "spray & pray gazelles". It will also keep older, slower, more accurate shooters in the running.

I'm not sure how well that translates to the Real World (I don't like cats ) because having been in the Real World I am convinced that a couple of -1 hits may not end things (or they might ) .... but two quick -1 hits will alter the BG's actions and give the Good Guy time to make more hits while the BG is having trouble making his hits.

The faster you hit your opponent the more you disrupt your opponent...and the less chance you have of receiving a -0/-1 hit yourself, and the better the opportunity to have the time to send some -0s downrange.

Larry Vickers was a Delta Force operator. They are highly trained. But, I think even he might agree that getting a fast couple of hits beats slowing down to get -0s if the other guy is shooting at you. Get your hits and you can always go back to 'clean things up'.

The bottom line is that I could really care less about the new scoring rule. I've always been one of the most accurate, but have been beaten buy the 'gazelles' who had 30 more down points than I did. But, I didn't get beat by more than that 15 second difference.

If this is an attempt to slow down the young, fast 'Gazelles' and make the game more competitive for the older, more experienced shooters.... I think they hit the nail on the head.

Beyond that I can't think of one logical reason for the scoring change.

[alma]

That sounds like the most likely motivation but sadly I don't think it will work out as expected by those who are initiating the change.

IT's most likely that a majority of the "gazelles" who are winning matches are capable of a good deal more accuracy than they may currently be displaying.

They are playing a game and trying to win so they have judged where they can go faster and drop a few points to end up with a better overall time. They are gamers perhaps but that also means that they are capable of adapting to new rulesets and adjusting to the harsher accuracy-oriented penalties. I suspect that the people who are at the bottom of the scores will remain there and IDPA will have to look for yet another way to hold back competitive shooters.

Edited October 17, 2015 by alma

[robport]

It will be interesting to see how dynamic match planning changes.

You won't be able to afford to screw up any stage, because you will rarely be able to come back from it, especially when your competitors see it and slow down, knowing you can't catch up on speed.

It will definitely make everyone inspect their sights before a match. Sales of gripping compound should also go up.

If the big guys screw up a stage, will they leave or hang around and finish anyway?

[motosapiens]

Bit of a thread drift...

Do IDPA members frequently troll in the USPSA forums?

I've only posted a handful of post there, but I didn't notice any animosity towards the sport from IDPA member.

One of my pet peeves. USPSA guys dog IDPA online and at their matches. Hardly ever hear IDPA shooters even mention USPSA. Why the animosity?

its not animosity. its frustration and amused schadenfreude among people who used to shoot IDPA and enjoyed it, but got driven off by jacked up stuff like this. (and the weird decisions on the shadow, and the standing reload bs, and the round dumping bs, and the way cover is called differently for different shooters and by different ro's and by the intentional stifling of creativity, etc....

[racknrider]

Bit of a thread drift...

Do IDPA members frequently troll in the USPSA forums?

I've only posted a handful of post there, but I didn't notice any animosity towards the sport from IDPA member.

One of my pet peeves. USPSA guys dog IDPA online and at their matches. Hardly ever hear IDPA shooters even mention USPSA. Why the animosity?

its not animosity. its frustration and amused schadenfreude among people who used to shoot IDPA and enjoyed it, but got driven off by jacked up stuff like this. (and the weird decisions on the shadow, and the standing reload bs, and the round dumping bs, and the way cover is called differently for different shooters and by different ro's and by the intentional stifling of creativity, etc....

Gotcha, it's the guys that can't stop talking about their ex.

[GlockCanMan]

In real life you'd get fired or possibly jail time for a hit on a nonthreat. Not putting people in jail just encourages gamers.

ha, no you wouldn't.

The NYPD shoots civilians ALL THE TIME.

If you were in NYC you'd be in jail just for owning guns.

That is one reason why I will never go to NY.

[motosapiens]

Bit of a thread drift...

Do IDPA members frequently troll in the USPSA forums?

I've only posted a handful of post there, but I didn't notice any animosity towards the sport from IDPA member.

One of my pet peeves. USPSA guys dog IDPA online and at their matches. Hardly ever hear IDPA shooters even mention USPSA. Why the animosity?

its not animosity. its frustration and amused schadenfreude among people who used to shoot IDPA and enjoyed it, but got driven off by jacked up stuff like this. (and the weird decisions on the shadow, and the standing reload bs, and the round dumping bs, and the way cover is called differently for different shooters and by different ro's and by the intentional stifling of creativity, etc....

Gotcha, it's the guys that can't stop talking about their ex.

heh heh, that made me lol. But yeah, if the ex has lots of good qualities, but a few retarded ones, its sometimes hard to let go. been there, done that, got the papers.

[euxx]

If you want to play with your past match results from PractiScore, Android 1.3.2 app allows to tweak Points Down penalty value. See:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=933664766701073&id=158776614189896

[rowdyb]

I still think it's dumb to make a -3 ( or will it now be called +3?) hit worth the same damage to my score as a procedural. If the "intent", oh man that was fun to type, is to reward accuracy and encourage accountability for something related to "the real world" then instead of only increasing a penalty why not provide an increased benefit for that accuracy which should be primary?

Provide more of a carrot for good shooting and less of a stick for bad shooting. Go ahead and make a hit in the -1 (+1) and -3 (+3) but then you better do something to make the -0 worth more as well!!!!!!! (-0.5??, -1???) Now that is the type of thinking and change I'd totally be behind.

It's unbalanced and short sighted to do something to one side of the equation and not the other.

Edited October 22, 2015 by rowdyb

[midvalleyshooter]

GSSF did this same type of thing a few years ago. Perhaps someone experienced how it affected the GSSF game could offer insight into how it would affect the IDPA game?

IMO the winners will continue to win. A few folks who can shoot but have bad wheels might move up a few placements. But I don't see this changing the landscape of IDPA.

[Gryff]

IMO the winners will continue to win. A few folks who can shoot but have bad wheels might move up a few placements. But I don't see this changing the landscape of IDPA.

I think that is an incomplete argument. The current winners will continue to win because they learned to be fast and accurate. I assert that future shooters will have a harder time reaching the pinnacle of shooting via IDPA because they will never be able to go through the realization that it's OK to take some points down in exchange for learning to shoot faster. True winners learn to be fast and accurate, but it's been argued that it is easier to learn to be accurate after learning to be fast, and much less so for vice versa.

My fear, as I've already stated, is that the new blood in the sport is going to bypass IDPA, or migrate out of it very quickly. Neither is going to help the long-term success of the sport.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Gryff

[LeviSS]

I think they've changed it to not intimidate shooters new to competition shooting. I know the first time I thought about shooting USPSA I went to watch a match. I thought "I can't hang with these guys". Little did I know, there are a lot of people who look really fast, but are just hosing.

I started IDPA because I have a CCP, it was a little slower paced, and slightly more accuracy oriented...which is a strength of mine.

I think it will bring more beginners in, but they will eventually leave if they get serious about getting good, like posted above.

Edited October 23, 2015 by LeviSS

[waktasz]

For the most part if you didn't have the internet and only went and shot matches you'd have no idea of any USPSA HQ turmoil. This is different

If I didn't have internet I wouldn't know about the IDPA scoring turmoil either. (Granted I haven't shot an IDPA match in a couple weeks.)

And the USPSA leadership issues were oft discussed at the USPSA matches I went too.

You would know when you went to a match and the scoring system had changed. None of the USPSA bullcrap going on affects your average local match shooter at all.

[GARD72977]

There are very few long shots in IDPA. These are easy shots and most of us can make them. We just have to use the correct sight picture and basic marksmanship skills. It really ads very little time to do it correctly the first time.

I bet that the majority of people would place much better if they practiced shooting 0 down shots and stop eating points down

[cnote]

I believe Vogel will adapt, overcome and still take first, just my two cents.

"Johny down twenty" per stage will have his work cut out for him

[robport]

One other interesting consideration: You have a bad stage and you are basically out fo the match. Your competitors can cruise from there. Not much chance of a comeback.

[FTDMFR]

I don't think this will change much. For a typical IDPA stage, such little raw time is spent on actual shooting. Most of the raw time is spent on draws, movement, reloads, and transitions, which aren't affected (much) by the new scoring. The guys that win are winning in large part because they are way faster at all the non-shooting stuff than everyone else.

The spread in match total will increase between the top and the bottom, but since people really only care about rank, that doesn't really matter. For the most part, people won't be moving up or down by whole classes.

Guys at the top who call their shots won't need to change their game much. They're already shooting nearly all -0s as fast as they can. Vogel won't need to change a thing,since he's already the fastest AND the most accurate.

The guys who sprint through stages shooting nothing but hopers will be hurt pretty bad, but I think those guys are pretty rare.

The guys who shoot slowly and deliberately and end up -0 to -10 for an entire match will not be helped much by the new scoring, since they're usually slow at everything else.

Some guys will try to adapt by scoring all their targets on paper and taking makeups as necessary, but they'll spend so much time staring at targets that it will be a wash.

For guys who can call their shots but are not super accurate, it might now be worth it to immediately make up -1 hits, but they'll still lose to the guys who don't need to take make up shots in the first place.

What it WILL do is, for any given two shooters of about the same skill level, give a bigger edge to the more accurate of the two. That's it. Small shifts in rankings WITHIN a given skill level, not major shifts BETWEEN skill levels.

Personally, I'm all for it. If I want to hose, there are plenty of other sports/matches around me where I can do that. If all the shooting sports were the same, then what would be the point of having different sports?