Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

IDPA Scoring ideas.


Ty Hamby

Recommended Posts

We all love Practiscore for USPSA. The ICORE version works just like it and I love it just the same. Taps per target with a defined amount is a preferred method of scoring IMO. As you know ICORE is penalty seconds per zone like IDPA's down points (.5 seconds). The problem with IDPA scoring in Practiscore is fat fingering the + and - buttons. When I first started scoring ICORE I used time plus and create my bonus (X) and Penalties (A,B,C,M). This worked great until I noticed accidental fat fingering going on. To solve this I I would place single +0 penalty boxes in between the +/- for to separate the scoring +/- buttons, With USPSA and ICORE there is no fat fingering going on because of the too many taps and it errors. I think if points were called like the other sports the interface for practiscore and IDPA would work better. I am noticing IDPA suffering from the fat finger. (we do use stylus's)

post-21005-0-52897400-1443073828_thumb.p

So why cant we have predefined shot required for IDPA? I think it is because how we score. We add up the total points in our head and call out the total points. This is IMO a flawed method of live on the move walking and tapping method of scoring.

Suppose the target required 2 hits you had a 2 hits in the down ZERO, Today we call out "Down Zero" Why not use the USPSA/ICORE style of target zone taps and call out 2, zeros.

If you had a zero and a -1 hit you call zero, single or zero 1.

If you had a -1 and a down 3, you could call single, triple.

And 2 down 3 hits would be called out as 2 triples FTN.

In stead of having a +/- box to tap multiple points into you would have an array of boxes like ICORE and USPSA uses with the top row header of -0. second header -1 third header -3 and fourth of -5

You would then just tap the appropriate box 2 times and the FTN box.

post-21005-0-30719900-1443076011_thumb.j

What are your thoughts? Should this be a requested feature? I know it would eliminate non-error fat fingering.

Edited by Ty Hamby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ty.. I initially had a layout like this but it wasn't well received. Folks wanted to "do the math".

What may be needed is a special match with scoring for the classifier, which has a lot more hits per paper than typical. And then a per target thing as you describe.

Are you up for creating a Google doc and sharing it with me and then we can spec it out?

Basically:

- per target scoring, with each required hit accounted for (like USPSA and iCore)

- describe hits, not do math.

I'm driving today, this will likely be my last contribution til later in the afternoon.

Ken N.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would leave the current IDPA scoring alone and add an IDPA "Hit Count" as an alternate optional module since many dont like change. Even being used for the classifier (30 hits per target) I would still preffer to tap boxes that would error should an extra hit or miss be counted. The current system does not error check. On more than one occation I have witnesses a post match score have a points down that is not even possible. There is no way to be 7 points down on a single target string that requires two hits. These errors are more common than many believe.

Second, I would love to help out in any way possible. I have time to contribute to this. Tell me more, how I can help.

Third, I am leaving today for the 2015 ICORE IRC and wont be back to contribute more until Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Ken said, PractiScore app scoring screens are basically very close to the official (or most common) score sheets used by each sport. Hence the per-target PDs for IDPA and no recording of individual hits for target.

You probably would have to approach and convince IDPA HQ to change the way they score and train their officials.

BTW, in an Android app, you don't really have to use +/- buttons for entering PDs and instead can key in the number of points of just keep hitting "Next" button on the virtual keyboard after each target (in case of zero points down), then it automatically scrolls trough all targets.

post-21787-0-68664300-1443111099_thumb.p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entering the numbers is an option on fast processors. The nooks are too slow for that, IMO. The ability to score fast with the nooks requires the error corrections that using "described hits" allow for. We have for 20 years called down points total per target as that is the fastest way to do it on paper. However I see no issue in recording target hits. It actually provides better end of match data to compare. Knowing where each scored hit landed per target is by far better than guessing how -14 on T3 occurred.
As for the IDPA HQ question, I am unaware of any rule or request in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what I am saying. Your officials been calling points down for 20 years. Now tell them to do it different when scoring electronically.

Changing the app is not a huge issue, but changing the organisation is a whole different story.

PS: Nook's processor is not much slower than your phone. There is a lag in screen refresh because of eink display, but you can type as fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see that at clubs I shoot at. Practiscore has a value to add to clubs. This is just one more step in making it all better and most importantly, more accurate.
single, tripple

single, single,

zero, zero

zero, zero

tripple, tripple, FTN

zero, miss

miss, miss, FTN

I don't think it will take long to retrain. Even the classifier can work. This method is much better for the classifier as many SO's cant add simple integers that well. (myself included) I would rather score a classifier in a no brainer method like this.

T1

count holes (27 in this case)

fourteen, zero's

six, singles

seven, triples and

three, misses

Let the app do the math. End of day we get to see how the points stacked up, what scoring zone on what targets in the stage contributed to the points.

Does a method like this require the existing method to go away or could the two work in conjunction with one another allowing the MD or Scorekeeper to select the preferred method?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does a method like this require the existing method to go away or could the two work in conjunction with one another allowing the MD or Scorekeeper to select the preferred method?

Not possible to leave it to a scorekeeper. The points down entry doesn't keep information about individual target hits, so they are pretty much mutually exclusive scoring approaches.

I don't shoot idpa and shrugged when I saw the scoresheets for the first time. Now it is the same for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that using the language in this thread is confusing because of the numbers.....zero zero's, one minus 1, etc.

Changing the targets to A (zero), B (-1), c (-3), and M (mike) similar to USPSA without the screwed up language Alpha, Beta, Charlie, Delta, Mike ??? would simplify range communications. I know someone will go nuts over making something similar to USPSA, but a good idea is a good idea.

Physical fault lines would help also so the good guys never get a cover call and us common jackasses get them constantly. Like I say, good ideas are good.

Both of these action pistol games are games, nothing more. Scoring should be fair and simple. That means minimal subjectivity and friendly to improved scoring technology.

I am old so maybe it is acceptable for me to criticize those unwilling to change anything (like carry optics which USPSA has now passed us by on). Let us not ignore electronic scoring and let us not continue the points-down-per-target system that is not data intensive and not useful to the shooter in analyzing his performance. Refusal to change with technology combined with a willingness to make drastic rules changes (like 1 sec= 1 point down, moving-no moving reloads,etc) are not helping IDPA.

This is going to hurt my credibility on this thread, but anyone who starts in IDPA and eventually tries USPSA is destined to quit IDPA eventually. I do not think this is funny or good. It is just a fact that USPSA requires a lot more stage planning thought, results in far more shooting and less rules thought and less SO subjectivity and fairness. I am not against IDPA, but there are problems with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets try to keep this about Practiscore IDPA scoring. Lets leave all the other discussions and solutions about rules and techniques to those other threads.

I do not believe the current input method of points down per target is the best method. The same that complained about practiscore in the beginning will be the same to complain about this. Calling out 2 zeros. is no more effort than calling out down zero. The score keeper will not be confused either. They will have to double tap the zero box or double tap the + icon twice. We currently call out a target score. (many cant even add correctly) However calling out target hits is the preferred method IMO.

Leaving out the operator error correcting found in USPSA and ICORE is not the best solution for IDPA.

What can I do to help move this option forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brook,

You were going off the rails talking about fault lines and leaving IDPA because anyone who tries USPSA soon leaves IDPA. A lot of mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with match scoring. My comment was to keep the focus of this thread about scoring IDPA on Practiscore.

euxx,

Is this the official score sheet template you are talking about? http://www.idpa.com/content/downloads/IDPA%20Score%20Sheet.March2015.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

euxx,

Is this the official score sheet template you are talking about? http://www.idpa.com/content/downloads/IDPA%20Score%20Sheet.March2015.pdf

Pretty much. It is also hardened by the scoring wording in the rule book I believe.

PS: I just proposed an idea within PS team how to make ICORE scoring completely configurable... if accepted, you could tweak it to score IDPA the way you wanted it. muhaha!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

euxx,

Is this the official score sheet template you are talking about? http://www.idpa.com/content/downloads/IDPA%20Score%20Sheet.March2015.pdf

Pretty much. It is also hardened by the scoring wording in the rule book I believe.

PS: I just proposed an idea within PS team how to make ICORE scoring completely configurable... if accepted, you could tweak it to score IDPA the way you wanted it. muhaha!!!

That would be welcomed. All anyone needs to do is title the headers from A,B,C,M NS NPM to -0, -1, -3, -5, FTN, HNT then edit penalties for each and go play.

post-21005-0-30719900-1443076011.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be welcomed. All anyone needs to do is title the headers from A,B,C,M NS NPM to -0, -1, -3, -5, FTN, HNT then edit penalties for each and go play.

You've missed the irony. That will be an ICORE match :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be welcomed. All anyone needs to do is title the headers from A,B,C,M NS NPM to -0, -1, -3, -5, FTN, HNT then edit penalties for each and go play.

You've missed the irony. That will be an ICORE match :)

I guess I did. As someone who shoots both games frequently I know that IDPA @ 1 second per point is still hardly ICORE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be welcomed. All anyone needs to do is title the headers from A,B,C,M NS NPM to -0, -1, -3, -5, FTN, HNT then edit penalties for each and go play.

BTW, you haven't addressed the question how RO would call out the scoring. Like try to call them out loud...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I have explained it clearly in my previous posts. Here is goes again.

The SO will yell out the best required hits they see on paper. (just like USPSA and ICORE)

2 hits in the -0 zone gets called "2 zeros"

2 hits on the -3 zone gets called "2 threes"

a hit in the -1 zone and a hit in the -0 zone gets called "1 zero, 1 three"

2 hits in the -0 zone, 1 hits in the -1 zone, and 3 hits in the -3 zone is called "2 zeros, 1 one, 3 three's"

easy peasy, simple simple...

#EndFatFingers #IDPAneedsErrorCorrectionToo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except "'s" will be swallowed in speech, so it will all become "2 zeros" sounds same as "2 0" (aka 20), "2 threes" - same as "2 3" (aka 23) and "1 zero, 1 three" - sounds the same as "1 0 1 3" (aka 10 13). To me that is waaay too confusing and error prone compared to letter-coded scoring zones in uspsa/ispc/icore.

Note that I am just making an observation. It may all sound good in writing, but take a sound recorder, call those hits out on a multiple targets and then play it back while wearing ear muffs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never inputted 20 down or 23 down or ten - thirteen. On a target scoring best 2 or 3 hits which is 98% of every target scored in IDPA. I doubt after saying it a couple times it won't be long till every SSO has it down pat. The inputting of points down has far more errors than you believe. Our club early in our practiscore usage, ran paper backup for months. Paper was inputed into forescore software while practiscore was tallied electronically. One person inputing paper rapidly to catch up at the end of the day was a recipie for disaster. The tablets also had errors that also needed to be corrected due to incorect points entered. Both forescore and Practiscore rely on accurate inputting. Both methods of input suffer from unintentional key strikes being allowed and accepted. Limiting the quantity of hits per target solves half the battle. Scoring hits in IDPA as we do in the other sports would be effortless.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...