Cumulative Time vs. Stage Points

[Jesse Tischauser]

Man I really dislike cumulative time scoring that 3GN currently uses.

The best way for me to summarize it's flaws is that It basically rewards the lower quantity (2-3 stages/match) of longer stages over a 100 stage points per stage match that rewards the higher quantity (6-7 stages/match) of smaller stages. Plus if you have a problem with a firearm the time just keeps on ticking. There is no limit to the damage that can be done other then you stopping shooting sooner then later.

I had a friend lose a trigger pin from his rifle on one stage. He wasted 10-15 seconds trying to get the rifle running before ever firing a shot. He finally gave up on the rifle and finished the remainder of the stage. On a 52 second stage he ended up taking 75 penalty seconds for FTE on top of the 10-15 seconds of time wasted assessing the problem on the clock. He ended up with a stage time of 178. Had the stage been worth 100 match points he would have received 29 match points rather then giving up essentially two stages worth of time at 126 seconds. Needless to say that much additional time cost him any chance of a finish close to what he could have achieved had the value of the stage been limited to 100 points.

What are your thoughts On cumulative time scoring versus stage points?

I have yet to hear a valid argument in favor of cumulative time.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Jesse Tischauser

[ericm]

Every skill in 3-gun is equally important: Presenting or drawing, movement with guns, fast shooting, precision shooting, loading.

Every stage in 3-gun is equally important: A down 'n dirty 10 round pistol stage AND 60 round 3-gun stage with long rifle shots.

Every stage should be worth the same as another: 100% or 100 match points per stage scoring does this just fine.

ericm

[Phil Dunlop]

We tried a time plus scoring system but only once.

The benefits were the simple calculation of score but the problems you mention were instantly obvious, bomb a stage and there was no way back.

If you just convert those times to a stage percentage based n the fastest, you don't value the number of shots fired, so a short course holds the same value, in terms of match score, as a long course.

Unless all stages are the same size I don't think your idea will accurately value the shooting achievement.

[Jesse Tischauser]

Every skill in 3-gun is equally important:

ericm

Exactly my feeling. Just because it takes longer shouldn't mean it's more valuable.

[Jesse Tischauser]

We tried a time plus scoring system but only once.

The benefits were the simple calculation of score but the problems you mention were instantly obvious, bomb a stage and there was no way back.

If you just convert those times to a stage percentage based n the fastest, you don't value the number of shots fired, so a short course holds the same value, in terms of match score, as a long course.

Unless all stages are the same size I don't think your idea will accurately value the shooting achievement.

Ideally all stages should be the exact same time but that never happens.

In a 100 points per stage match the smaller stages gain value over the big ones because a seconf is more valuable. Most matches have more stages that are smaller then the 1-3 big long range stages or stages with lots of slugs or slow shooting/loading shotgun.

Nationals was no different. 3 stages took 70+ and the rest were under 55ish.

I agree that everyone does enjoy the ease of understating a cumulative time scoring system. That is nice!

Edited October 11, 2015 by Jesse Tischauser

[RJH]

Hit factor, because all stages are not equal and this is the only scoring method that really takes that into account.

[toothandnail]

I prefer cumulative, basically, it's a race .

If somebody's equip fails, that's not my problem, yes it SUCKS,and stuff breaks. But maybe next time you(or I) will prepare better.

Bring the best you've got, give 100%, win,lose, draw, or break

If all the stages used all the guns equally, regardless of stage length, points would be more fair. However many matches are pistol heavy, thus favoring an excellent pistol shooter over an excellent rifleman because the rifle shooter may only have 1, maybe 2 stages that are rifle heavy.

Neither are 100% fair to everybody, varying stage points according to difficulty or round count, may be a better all around way

[RJH]

toothandnail, your last statement describes hit factor scoring hmmmm.......

[P.E. Kelley]

You can have time plus and points...it is done in many events.

Short stages 50 or 75 points with the fastest time getting all the point and everyone else a % of the winner.

Longer stages 100 or 150.

Steel Challenge has a throwaway run and the cumulative time.

I don't like cumulative in 3 gun.

To say "suck it up" if your gun breaks doesn't wash with me....let's say you have WON EVERY stage of the match and you have

a cam pin break on the last stage. In cumulative scoring you do not win a match that you CLEARLY won. With points, that would be difficult

to have happen.

[Garmil]

I think winning a stage by a little or a lot should effect the score the same. Take each person's rank in each stage add them up lowest score wins and so on. Tie breakers could go to overall time.

[toothandnail]

I come from a motor-sports racing back ground, didn't matter if you lead every lap but something failed the last 50' and you got passed. Your just the first loser.

In my mind this is racing, whoever comes in first wins, if your junk breaks at the beginning, or the last second - better luck next time.

[P.E. Kelley]

I come from a motor-sports racing back ground, didn't matter if you lead every lap but something failed the last 50' and you got passed. Your just the first loser.

In my mind this is racing, whoever comes in first wins, if your junk breaks at the beginning, or the last second - better luck next time.

I don't have that background so we will have to respectfully disagree.

Still going to have to buy one of your open shotguns!

Edited October 11, 2015 by P.E. Kelley

[Fullauto_Shooter]

I prefer stage points scoring - this can be either 100pts per stage or weighted stage points based on # of guns used in a course of fire or round count, it really doesn't matter to me as long as it's published ahead of time. Cumulative time scoring almost always creates stages that are "worth" far more than others. . . usually long range stages and high round count shotgun stages.

[toothandnail]

I come from a motor-sports racing back ground, didn't matter if you lead every lap but something failed the last 50' and you got passed. Your just the first loser.

In my mind this is racing, whoever comes in first wins, if your junk breaks at the beginning, or the last second - better luck next time.

I don't have that background so we will have to respectfully disagree.

Still going to have to buy one of your open shotguns!

No problem, I'll shoot them ALL !

And stage points vs time, has helped my placement more than once.

Call anytime on the Shotgun.

Any match we're at anyone is welcome to shoot ours, don't be hesitant to ask.

Edited October 11, 2015 by toothandnail

[Jim Norman]

Time-Plus_Penalties Convert to points. One gun 100 points, Two guns 200 points, Three guns 300 points.

Or 100-125-150

Or 100 per stage, period

All of these work and work well. Straight time, depending upon the penalties can be gamed. Toss a shot at a LR steel, take a 5 second penalty, maybe just take and fte, vs actually try to hit, take 3 shots, burn 10 plus seconds to get into postions, mutilpy across several targets and even hitting the target might not make up for just taking a miss. In Time-Plus-Points while there is still an issue, it is not as brutal a difference.

[kurtm]

My thoughts are if you really don't like cumulative time scoring, don't shoot matches that do that. Lots of scoring systems out there and lots of matches. Personally I don't like it, but if I sign up to shoot a match that does it, I am kind of saying I will abide by it and really can't complain about it.

[Bryan 45]

I come from a motor-sports racing back ground, didn't matter if you lead every lap but something failed the last 50' and you got passed. Your just the first loser.

In my mind this is racing, whoever comes in first wins, if your junk breaks at the beginning, or the last second - better luck next time.

I've heard the racing analogy quite a few times, and if the clock started on stage 1 and stopped when we were done shooting stage 9, I'd agree. But since it stops after stage one, restarts and stops again after 2, etc, there is no good reason to use total time scoring. Each stage does stand on its own, and that's why points are more accurate of a representation of scoring.

and I agree with Kurt- there are lots of great matches that use points. That's what I choose to shoot.

[Stlhead]

You can have time plus and points...it is done in many events.

Short stages 50 or 75 points with the fastest time getting all the point and everyone else a % of the winner.

Longer stages 100 or 150.

Steel Challenge has a throwaway run and the cumulative time.

I don't like cumulative in 3 gun.

To say "suck it up" if your gun breaks doesn't wash with me....let's say you have WON EVERY stage of the match and you have

a cam pin break on the last stage. In cumulative scoring you do not win a match that you CLEARLY won. With points, that would be difficult

to have happen.

Pat, I must take the other side of this argument. If the rules are total time, and your total time is not lower than everyone else's you did not clearly win the match, even if you won all of the stages but one. To clearly win the match you would need to have the lowest total time. Our sport is a game, the winner is chosen by applying the rules. I have benefitted from total time matches and often benefitted from stage point matches as well, depending on the circumstances. Clamoring for a win because you want the score calculated differently is no different than wanting the penalty for a missed target or a failure to engage penalty reduced.

There are two main results from the stage points method of total scoring. Reducing the effect of shitting the bed on a single or relatively small number of stages that are well below the shooters average performance, and reducing the value of the long range aspect of our sport. Most matches do not have the range to include long targets on every stage. If there where three or four longer ranged targets on every stage of every match this would not be an issue, but most matches will only have longer range targets on a couple of stages or one. Like Jessie has said, if all stages are about the same par time then there would be less demand for stage points, but reality is that if we plan on keeping long range targets in our game, and new ranges don't magically appear that allow it on every stage, then having all the stages have a similar par time is a pipe dream. Thus the call for stage points to equalize the value of dinky stages with the epic stages. What we have is a catch 22. We want long range shooting, we want equal weight on stages, we want to devalue penalties if the rest of the match is shot clean, but we want the match to be fair and the winner to have earned it.

Stage points is the socialist scoring method. All stages are worth the same, be they good or bad, short or long, and if you f*#k up a single stage, you get a bit of a pass. Total time is the capitalist method, you get what you earn, want a better score then shoot the targets faster and don't shit the bed, every second counts just the same. I honestly don't think that one is better than the other, someone may prefer one system to the other, but there is no way to call one better than the other. Every benefit claimed can just as easily be considered a drawback by another shooter. This is a tastes great less filling argument, if you don't like the rules don't shoot the match. Or better yet, figure out a new system that accomplishes all of your scoring goals and causes the person that you think should win to win every time.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Stlhead

[P.E. Kelley]

Ok great...it has been a long week and now I am a socialist. You know I have had about all I can stand trying to participate on this forum.

Score how you like however you like.

Whatever.

[Benelli Chick]

You can have time plus and points...it is done in many events.

Short stages 50 or 75 points with the fastest time getting all the point and everyone else a % of the winner.

Longer stages 100 or 150.

Steel Challenge has a throwaway run and the cumulative time.

I don't like cumulative in 3 gun.

To say "suck it up" if your gun breaks doesn't wash with me....let's say you have WON EVERY stage of the match and you have

a cam pin break on the last stage. In cumulative scoring you do not win a match that you CLEARLY won. With points, that would be difficult

to have happen.

Pat, I must take the other side of this argument. If the rules are total time, and your total time is not lower than everyone else's you did not clearly win the match, even if you won all of the stages but one. To clearly win the match you would need to have the lowest total time. Our sport is a game, the winner is chosen by applying the rules. I have benefitted from total time matches and often benefitted from stage point matches as well, depending on the circumstances. Clamoring for a win because you want the score calculated differently is no different than wanting the penalty for a missed target or a failure to engage penalty reduced.

There are two main results from the stage points method of total scoring. Reducing the effect of shitting the bed on a single or relatively small number of stages that are well below the shooters average performance, and reducing the value of the long range aspect of our sport. Most matches do not have the range to include long targets on every stage. If there where three or four longer ranged targets on every stage of every match this would not be an issue, but most matches will only have longer range targets on a couple of stages or one. Like Jessie has said, if all stages are about the same par time then there would be less demand for stage points, but reality is that if we plan on keeping long range targets in our game, and new ranges don't magically appear that allow it on every stage, then having all the stages have a similar par time is a pipe dream. Thus the call for stage points to equalize the value of dinky stages with the epic stages. What we have is a catch 22. We want long range shooting, we want equal weight on stages, we want to devalue penalties if the rest of the match is shot clean, but we want the match to be fair and the winner to have earned it.

Stage points is the socialist scoring method. All stages are worth the same, be they good or bad, short or long, and if you f*#k up a single stage, you get a bit of a pass. Total time is the capitalist method, you get what you earn, want a better score then shoot the targets faster and don't shit the bed, every second counts just the same. I honestly don't think that one is better than the other, someone may prefer one system to the other, but there is no way to call one better than the other. Every benefit claimed can just as easily be considered a drawback by another shooter. This is a tastes great less filling argument, if you don't like the rules don't shoot the match. Or better yet, figure out a new system that accomplishes all of your scoring goals and causes the person that you think should win to win every time.

Stlhead, I agree with you often, but "socialist"? That would be everyone gets the same points on every stage and then they have to stand in line to check out toilet paper for the porta-potty!!!

Socialism gives people points just for showing up. On points, you only get points for your performance...you can tank a stage quite well, and if you tank it well enough, it will lose you the match. It just might not make it pointless for you to continue as you can make up some of your points by a good performance.

As I have said before, total time, if you have a truly bad stage, the only way you can come back is by the crappy performance of others...it is no longer about you and you doing the best you can do. In points, you still need to keep doing your best, and you can come back. (It does help if someone else tanks but at least ALL the people don't have to tank.) In total time, if you truly tank a stage, you can put yourself in last place and never be able to climb out of it...

So, in closing, if you earn points on your performance, it's NOT socialism!!!

Kind of confused on how total time is capitalism...in capitalism, your time should go down (score goes up) the more demand for you there is...Supply and demand...If you invest your time in the right thing, you should reap good returns...but practice is a good investment in either system!!!

Oh yeah, and it's not really the tanking that matters to me. I just feel like each stage is the challenge, not the targets etc.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Benelli Chick

[SinistralRifleman]

I actually prefer total time based scoring because it rewards consistency and reliable equipment.

Scoring method should be determined by the goals of the match, and what the match wants to test.

[Fullauto_Shooter]

"Stage points is the socialist method of scoring."

It's official - this the dumbest statement I've ever read on this forum. Choke yourself. . .

[StealthyBlagga]

I come from a motor-sports racing back ground, didn't matter if you lead every lap but something failed the last 50' and you got passed. Your just the first loser.

In my mind this is racing, whoever comes in first wins, if your junk breaks at the beginning, or the last second - better luck next time.

You analogy only works if the match consists of ONE stage. A multi-stage match is more like a race series, with points awarded according to finish in each race.

My vote is for 100 points per stage. Short, long, one gun or three. All shooting problems should have equal weight. The top guys will still win.

[Stlhead]

Pat, the only thing about your statement that I disagreed with was that someone could clearly win the match if they did not have the lowest total time. That would not constitute a "clear" win. Sorry about the recent events. I should have sniped the quote to be more clear, I did not mean to infer you where a pinko.

Yes socialism. Gun breaks half way through a stage, you loose a ton of stage points, Mabee drop a few places. In a total time match you take 300 seconds of penalties and drop a ton more. It's a safety net at times and a glass ceiling at others. A way to keep score that keeps a shooter from winning the match by blowing the curve on a single big stage, and at he same time keeps another from loosing a ton of places by screwing up on a stage. It plays to the advantage of the shooters in the middle. The capitalism analogy for total time is that you get what you earn, no less and no more. The labels don't matter, the results do, the way the score is kept changes the final results. Who do you want to win? Pick the scoring system that you think will benefit the type of shooter that you think deserves to win and support it.

Fullauto, you must not read this forum much. I have seen the laws of phisics disputed. I have read how brand X or technique Y was a requirement for winning or reason for loosing. If you disagree with my assertions make an argument. If your love for one scoring system or another is so strong surely you can tell us why! As I have said, I don't have a consistent preference, I have been helped and harmed by both. Tell us what in my post you think is wrong. Point out my stupidity so that I can learn from it. Or is there some other reason that you think I should be harmed besides my description of the scoring methods?

Denise, you are thinking Cuba, I am thinking Stage points is more like Canada. Not standing in line for free toilet paper, just some people overpaying so that others get it at a discount.

For the race comparison, a stage race has the total time added, even if the stages are done over a number of days. Stage points as commonly used in our sport would be more like a series where each race was scored on it's own, then totaled. Again, semantics. Different ways to keep score.

Seems like some people think I threatened a sacred cow.

[P.E. Kelley]

My "contribution" was only an opinion of what I liked.

I shoot the matches I like (it really is about fun) and don't shoot the ones I don't.

By signing up, you agree to the rules (that you should have read) now is time to go shoot.

But...this is THE forum where we competitors get to discuss the pros and cons the likes and dislikes of

our game. Rules, stage design, officiating, logistics what have you. It is all up for knocking about, but the

"political" labeling of those with a different view just torques me the wrong way.

My previous post was written through clench teeth, (this one is written @ 0300 and sick as a dog) I should have not posted a thing.

Sometimes I fail to filter myself before I hit "post" Such was the case with my "whatever" post.

So long as I still have events where I can meet and play with my many friends on and range, It's all good.

And since Stilhead is one of those hardworking volunteers that we so desperately need in our sport, I am looking

forward to shooting under his direction once again.

I hope this reads right...cause I ain't!

Zzzzzzz