-1 Points down = 1 second?

[GMB]

Maybe they will ask for input at Nationals this year.

[GMB]

So it appears that IDPA HQ has no desire to listen to the membership on this one. That truly is sad. Trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing. Sounds like the gov.

[rowdyb]

I get paid to wear my shirt. Not sure if I'd get paid to take it off.....

[robport]

Huum, good thought. I don't get paid to wear a shirt, but they may pay me not to take it off.

[Sidewinder6]

At least SASS is out in the open about their members wearing costumes out in public.

Photographers vests look as silly as wearing your belt backwards so you can hang more junk on your pants.

What amazing are the number of mediocre shooters that go out of their way to collect sponsors to plaster all over their clothing.

Yup, that $10 wood sure looks better on your wall than the certificate from night school. And then the meaningful string of hashtags at the end of the Facebook posts that remind us of the 50 seconds of health warnings after 10 seconds of commercials at dinner time.

Seems folks are tired of with the messages justifying why things are always changing.

[Nemesis Lead]

Just a practical question (and I am certainly not out to bash a sport here)......which would be a better demonstration of shooting to you?

Shooter A who draws on a 10 yard, open target and shoots one -0 and one -1 in ONE second.

or

Shooter B who draws on a 10 yard, open target and shoots two -0s in TWO seconds.

Under the OLD rules, Shooter A would be scored at 1.5 seconds and Shooter B at 2 seconds.

But think about it. Shooter A probably drew and fired his first shot in .8 seconds with a .2 split. Even though he shot one -1, that is damned impressive. I personally think I could do this 2 times out of 10 tries.

Shooter B probably drew at 1.5 seconds and had a .5 split to get his down zero hits. Is this impressive? Not at all. I personally could do this 10 times out of 10 tries.

But with the UPCOMING IDPA rules, shooter A and shooter B are TIED at 2 seconds.

My personal opinion (based on this practical example) is that IDPA will stress accuracy TOO much.

While the best shooters will still be the best shooters, people will begin to develop bad habits like letting their sights dwell on the A zone.

Time will tell....

Edited July 22, 2016 by Nemesis Lead

[rowdyb]

^^^ the problem and you kind of touch on it tangentially, and sorry you've heard me say this a million times now, but you can't take part of the equation of a score and change its value and not do something to the opposite and equal side of the scoring equation.

a -3 isn't equal to a procedural in harm to your score. ridiculous.

look at the icore target where if you hit the black part of the bull you get time taken off your raw time!

could you imagine, ok fine, a point down is a second. but each -0 is 0.25 second off your score for example.

if you're going to ramp up the penalty for innacuracy (completely separated from the idea of speed. the -1 or -3 is scored what it is regardless of the speed it was shot at, so speed doesn't matter.) then you HAVE to also do something to reward accuracy more so as well. (again, the value of the hit isn't tied to the speed at which it was shot. all idpa stages are "fixed hit factor" for lack of a better term)

thinking of it this way divorces the score from issues of speed, real life, founder's intent or whatever. it's about appropriate balance in an equation.

[Forrest Halley]

You are correct in your assessment of the new scoring Rowdy. It's fat guy scoring at a second per point. Your pulled shot being a down three is a bit steep as you're basically saying there's a procedural per shot for everything out of the -1. A reversal of the signs is in order. It's a time plus match so have the penalties all be time added. A half second bonus is not hard to believe for making critical hits, but you're honestly just paying people to shoot perfectly. What's the point of that?

As far as the sliding scale of scoring goes, that makes it into a computer ideal proposition for data entry and scoring and there's now room for error and extreme sandbagging.

[IHAVEGAS]

It is interesting to think about, as a gamer I really do not care one way or the other.

If I was self defense scenario oriented, there are times when the penalties for an errant shot could be severe and other situations where it would be not so important. I dunno.

Have started rethinking my personal carry firearm, in my old world view it was just about somebody in your face and now I'm thinking more of times when I might need greater accuracy.

Edited July 23, 2016 by IHAVEGAS

[IronArcher]

I think giving a time bonus to -0 hits ends up being the same thing as adding to the penalty for -1 and worse hits.

It's basically making -1 hits a 1.25 penalty instead of 1 second.

Increase the penalties for mikes and no-shoots if you want people to "be responsible for every shot"

1sec/point simply slows the game down too much.

[rowdyb]

I could totally buy an increase in severity for a miss or a non threat. They're scored off the target. But for hits on the target, a -1 or -3, the one second per is absolutely retarded.

Next thing you know they'll take this 1sec per, and use it as a reason to get everyone EX and below to reclassify. Just you wait..... If this really goes through there will be a classification paradigm shift. And I would bet 100rnds of ammo it will relax the standards it takes to make Master.

[Jim Watson]

Why all the "Don't change this, change that." stuff?

It isn't the 1:1 scoring, LV said he wanted that from the start, it's the constant tweaking and fiddling with the rules that annoys.

[racknrider]

I hope they leave Master level times the same and change the times for the other classes making each move up more difficult. I think it's too easy to make Master now.

[Steppenwolf]

I shot an IDPA match recently that had five stages. I had not shot at an IDPA match for two months. I actually thought the new scoring was in effect. I slowed down a bit to ensure accuracy because I thought it was 1 point down = -1 second. I was third place out of 24 competitors. I was 5 seconds behind the first place finisher and 4.75 seconds behind the second place finisher. The first and second place finishers have switched to mainly USPSA shooting and went for speed. After the match I found out that the new scoring was not implemented yet, but if it had I would have won the match. The first-place finisher was down 28 points (but shot "fast") and the second-place finisher was down 20 points (with one procedural). I was only down 5 points with no penalties. If I had realized that the new scoring was not implemented I would have a bit faster. What I don't know is if the winner would have shot a bit slower if the new scoring was implemented.

[rowdyb]

i shoot more uspsa than idpa now. i "just shoot", meaning i'm operating in my comfort zone at 90% and am just doing, not "trying".

here are the results from a match this weekend where i won. and there were other masters there so it wasn't just me beating up on ss and mm shooters.

https://practiscore.com/results/23301

me. overall winnner. third most accurate. fastest raw time. no penalties.

current rules. 72.49 raw and 11pd is 77.99. new rules score of 83.49. (still first overall)

current rules 7% of my score came from "error". new rules 13% of my score is from error/pd/penalties ect.

2nd place. master in multi divisions. definitely an idpa guy.

current rules 83.61 raw and 5pd is 86.11. new rules score of 88.61.

current rules 3% of score from error. new rules is 6% of score from error.

3rd place. new master. idpa guy. younger, fit.

current rules 77.87 raw and 18pd is 86.87. new rules score of 95.87. (goes from just less than a second behind to now 7 seconds behind 2nd place, that's huge)

current rules 11% of score from error. new rules he is 19% of his score from pd

4th place. ss but ex in other divisions

current rules raw time 91.5 with 13pd for a final of 98.00. new score rules of 104.5.

7% of score from errors in current rules. in new rules 13% of score comes from error.

most accurate. 9th place overall.

111.39 raw with 4pd and 1pe is 116.39. new rules is 118.39.

5% of score from error as rules are now. new rules he is 6%.

Look at 3rrd place. Look at most accurate. Notice the proportions and how they change old versus new rules. Look at how the gaps move. If you look at the relationships rather than just simplistic differences (by that i mean subtractions, the math definition of difference) you'll see why i think this is a bad idea.

current rules. first has a decent lead and 2nd and third are super close. 4th wasn't in the running.

1st 77.99

2nd 86.11

3rd 86.87

4th 98.00

new rules. now 1st and 2nd seem closer. 3rd is off the back and 4th really wasn't in the running.

1st 83.49

2nd 88.61

3rd 95.87

4th 104.5

the way the finishing relationships changed doesn't truly represent the shooting and the match when scored under the new rules. that's why it's a bad idea, 100%.

[Jim Watson]

I agree. As I have said, I am in the old, fat, slow, moderately accurate division so Joyce count will help me. But how much? From last Expert to next to last, from 17th overall to 15th. Yawn.

The changes will be at the margins. Your example did not change the placement, just the spreads; but I have seen cases where it would. A second can easily be the difference between first and second. (My last match I was 3rd in a small field, .05 sec ahead of 4th.)

I don't think you can reasonably say that "the good shooters will slow down JUST ENOUGH to get better hits." I don't think even the top shooters can control their shooting to the 20th of a second, probably not to the second.

I still say it is not the change in scoring, it is the CHANGE.

[GMB]

Let's just hope that the decision makers take pause and listen to the members. I agree to raise the penalties for non-threat and misses, but leave the rest alone. IMO

[Jim Watson]

Lazarus Long said that in any statement containing the word "but", a period should be placed there.

That makes it a simple "Leave it alone."

[LeviSS]

Looks like its official...

From Joyce in the newest TJ:

"When it (the 2017 rule book) goes into effect next year, we will also be updating to the 1 second per point down rule. Our hope is that this rulebook will not need to be updated for 3-5 years."

I think this is a big mistake on their part.

[JohnRodriguez]

I wish Joyce would stop sending me IDPA's magazine as I'm not a member anymore.  maybe they have hundreds of magazine's left over from all the other people who didn't renew, and they are just trying to get rid of them.  

[GMB]

That's really sad. To bad they choose to ignore the membership. Looks like more USPSA and less IDPA for me in the future.

[B_RAD]

45 minutes ago, GMB said:

That's really sad. To bad they choose to ignore the membership. Looks like more USPSA and less IDPA for me in the future.

Yup

[IronArcher]

I'll likely be part of that group.
Oddly enough, most of the matches I have shot, I would have benefitted from the rule... but I still think it's stupid.

[IronArcher]

	#	Shooter	Division	Class	Categories	Down	Match Final
	1	Adam S	ESP	EX		27	115.85
	2	Thomas S	CCP	EX		23	124.77
	3	Joseph K	ESP	SS	"Distinguished Senior","Military Vet"	35	132.13
	4	Karl H	SSP	SS		58	132.39
	5	John Archer	ESP	MM		24	140.70

1:1

Adam S 129.35

Thomas S 136.27

Joe K  146.63

Karl H 161.39

John A   152.7

Some other poor dude was only 16 down (he was in like 24th place) looking at the scores around him, he would have moved up a LOT.

 

[IHAVEGAS]

2 hours ago, GMB said:

That's really sad. To bad they choose to ignore the membership. Looks like more USPSA and less IDPA for me in the future.

With USPSA their is a lot of wringing of hands and hair pulling over their latest recent change of note (pcc) also. 

Maybe steels ?