What makes a good stage?

[CrashDodson]

As a competitor what makes a good stage?  What stages have you shot and said "damn that was fun!"?  Is it the flow of the stage?  movement or lack of?  Fancy moving targets?  Variation in skill such as hoser and distance shooting on the same stage?  Any links to video to stages you think are great would be a plus too.  
 

I for one hate stuff like half covered stars or tons of no shoots.  I like interesting stuff like having to walk on planks or bridges.  I like stages that end up having multiple ways to shoot them, though I don't think that is always the designers intention.  I have never seen a tunnel other than in video but they look interesting.  What types of stages should make up a good local match?  

[Trent1k1]

Stage design....

Its a very personal thing.  Some people love to be tested on many different skill sets, and some only want to see how quickly everyone can do a stage exactly the same way.

That attachement is to the stages for a match we had last weekend.  I put sightlines on the stages to show the builders what the concept was for each stage.  It will also demonstrate that i was trying to have multiple options for each stage, and each stage was different.  Hose stages, little bit more technical stages, fast stages, props, etc.  I also believe that EVERY shooter should be able to make every shot on a stage.  It may take a D class guy much longer to make the shot, but i always try to give them an option to run up, get closer, not try to time the props so they are impossible to shoot.

I love to shoot on the move but feel it is important to test all of a shooters skills to determine the best shooter on each day.

Build version.pdf

[CrashDodson]

Thanks for that.  Was that a local match?  

Should you take into account physical disabilities or just design good stages?  We have some shooters that have trouble with the low/kneeling shots.  I know you cant cater to everyone but I don't want to turn away people either.  

[Trent1k1]

It was a local match, but a "mini-Major" match.  We do something special on the 5th Saturdays as our range is available on that day.  We charged $35 and have to cap at 91 shooters due to range limitations.

We pick a Division and award plaques for that Division only for the 1 day match.  We did Single Stack, Production and those stages were from the Limited Match.  Limited forced a lot of people to actually load up their Production mags to capacity and try the somewhat more aggressive Limited division.  I made the stages short or long enough that either everyone reloaded, or no one reloaded.

It is critical to take into account shooters with disabilities and provide them a way to complete the stage.  USPSA does have provisions for providing a Penalty assessment of the points earned to 'not go prone, take a knee, climb a wall, etc." I think it is important to take that into account but look at your demographics.  IF only 1 or 2 shooters physically cannot finish the stage that is one thing.  If 10 are whiners as they have never taken a knee or shot prone that is something else.  We usually try to proof concepts like this during our weekly matches to see how it affects shooters.

You may design a stage with a low port, so that it might make sense for the shooter to end up at the low port on a knee.  That solves the biggest problem of shooters trying to get back up from a knee during the middle of the stage.

I've attached a couple more matches and stages.  while some of them look complex, we do things like make the drop-turner Disappearing so it is NPM.  Rewards the faster/better shooters and doesn't cause unnecessary Mikes for them.

 

StagesComplex Stage ideas.pdf

[CrashDodson]

8 minutes ago, Trent1k1 said:

 

You may design a stage with a low port, so that it might make sense for the shooter to end up at the low port on a knee.  That solves the biggest problem of shooters trying to get back up from a knee during the middle of the stage.

 

This is a great point and I think would work for my guys with physical trouble.  The getting up from the low positions is the problem for them. 

[Trent1k1]

It has worked well for us.

Its amazing how many people who magically have a back/knee problem that has never appeared as they run quickly through stages..... 

 

[CrashDodson]

do you cycle some of your stages back through or always try to have new ones?

[Trent1k1]

The match we had on Saturday, we left 5 of the 7 stages up to shoot tonight.  Everyone will shoot it with their normal guns tonight.

Other than that, we seldom use previous stages.  At some point, they do sort of feel the same as we only have "x" much real estate and our club doesn't have side berms for the most part so we have to align targets in a north to south arrangement.  For our larger matches we do bring in some dirt as it allows for much more flexibility.

We have a core group of 4-6 people that build stages.  Each has a slightly different feel.  We try to grab new people and train them with all of the normal stage designers so they get a feel for the concept of a stage.  It's not a quick training process, but it eventually works.  We have even let them build some "not so good" stages and then make them shoot the stages.  (remember the 6 inch plate thing?)  They usually get what we were talking about when they are trying to shoot it.

[Trent1k1]

One of our guys was working on a stage design doc.  Let me see if i can find that for you.

[Trent1k1]

27 minutes ago, Trent1k1 said:

One of our guys was working on a stage design doc.  Let me see if i can find that for you.

Attached.

Stage Building V1 2.pdf

[IronArcher]

For me, I like a fun, yet challenging stage.
Movement is usually good, a variety of targets is good (near, far etc), stages with multiple REAL options is good. Knock down ports, obstacles all fun stuff.
Flow was mentioned, I do enjoy when a stage flows well (often that means not being 100% symmetrical)

What I don't like are incredibly complex stages or throwing a bunch of no shoots onto what might have been a more basic stage. That just seems lazy.

If it takes more than a few minutes to learn the stage (not master, just learn) it's probably too complicated (not everyone can show up a day (or hours) before a match and walk through everything.
I don't like SHO/WHO stages, but think they do indeed have merit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[CrashDodson]

3 hours ago, Trent1k1 said:

Attached.

Stage Building V1 2.pdf

thats a solid document, thank you

[cas]

Quote

What makes a good stage?

Options. 

To me, a great stage has several ways to shoot it, without any one being obviously better than another.

I like when a stage gives a shooter an option that works better for him, for example standing and aiming harder shots vs running and hosing, but allows a mixture of both if you want. 

[fishhunter3]

easy, there very first stage I ever shot, I was stationed in Germany many moons ago (1984) a friend asked me if I would like to shoot an IPSC match, He had to explain what that was ,It was with the old Eifel Combat Pistol Team ( mix of US Mill and local civilians} it was only 10 targets 20 rounds and a bunch of no shoots mixed in, but was shot at night with only buckets of sand and diesel burning around the stage for light. it was called  the fort apache night fight,  been shooting ever since, and still having fun

[RJH]

Most any legal stage is fun to me.  But for a match to be fun, I like a variety of stages.  Standards, hosefest, movers (somewhat, lots of movers can be a pain to set), tight shots and no shoots, steel.  All is fine, but a mixture is the best IMO

[ATLDave]

Risk/reward choices are the key to competitor fun, IMO.  Some people like to take flying leaps - the thrill of success is heady, and failure isn't crushing (hey, you knew you were hanging it out there).  Those who prefer to shoot in a more risk-averse manner aren't made uncomfortable.  

The closer the call between the expected value of the safe versus risky strategy, the more fun it is.  IMO, when different shooters of comparable skill shoot a stage 2, 3, or 4 different ways, something interesting is happening.  If nothing else, it gives you something to talk about at the back of the bay.  

[d_striker]

You're going to get a ton of different answers as "fun" and "good" are relative to the individual and what division they are shooting.

For me, there are multiple components to good stage design, though they are not mutually exclusive.

I like stages that give you options where it's not completely obvious on what the best stage plan is.  In other words, a stage that has multiple solutions.  Being able to engage the same targets in different locations usually leads to a stage with multiple solutions.

Stages that have an element of risk vs reward also makes things interesting in how competitors approach the solution.  Activation sequences where the shooter must decide how many targets to "fit in" between the activator and the activated target is one example of this.  Another example is being able to engage a target/s from one location which may be more difficult but perhaps offers some time savings.   

Personally, I don't like gimmicks or props but a lot of people do and it does change it up a bit.  But I get frustrated with matches that are more of a test in how well the competitor deals with props (wobbly bridges/boats, carrying medicine balls, etc) than shooting and technical movement.  

 

 

[Dr Mitch]

Options

[M1911]

What I like are stages that can be shot several ways -- stages that make you think when coming up with a stage plan.

[CrashDodson]

Now if I could translate all this to actual stage design!  It never ends up shooting the same way it looks on paper.

[ATLDave]

As someone who comes up with/builds over 100 stages a year, I have given up on trying to really "design" stages on paper/computer, in part for the reason you just stated: it's always different on the ground.  I think it's better to roughly sketch the concept, then build and adjust as you build so that whatever "feel" you want the stage to have or concepts you want to include are there.  You can make a nicer drawing then if you want.  

Not ideal if people want match books ahead of time, but everyone knows that you can't do much planning based on a match book anyway - again, because it's ALWAYS different on the ground.  

[Trent1k1]

putting on paper is a good start, but there is no substitute for experience.  You need to build a stage (or steal one from the Internets) and see what you liked and didn't like.  Be a fly on the wall, and listen to what shooters are saying.  They will let you know what they liked or did not like.

The simplest stage i ever shot was a small plate at 18 yards, and a huge Popper at 9 yards.  2 strings, shooter draws and shoots whatever one they want with hands surrender, and the 2nd string they shot with hands relaxed.  Every shooter has 2 option before they start and the arguing about which is the best way is hilarious.  Believe it or not, with 2 strings, and only 2 shots it still takes about 2-3 minutes for each shooter just do to the time to walk downrange to reset the plate.

 

[CrashDodson]

Should a good local match 4/5 stages plus classifier consist of a mix of bigger field type courses and some stages with little movement?  Its pretty hard to design a short stage with little movement that has many options on how to shoot it.

[IronArcher]

The shorter the stage, the fewer options you are going to be able to have.
I would say yes, you should have a short stage or 2. Make them fun even if there aren't many options or much movement. Sometimes a short hoser stage is a nice stress reliever


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[my00wrx1]

10 hours ago, CrashDodson said:

Should a good local match 4/5 stages plus classifier consist of a mix of bigger field type courses and some stages with little movement?  Its pretty hard to design a short stage with little movement that has many options on how to shoot it.

It can be a challenge but don't fall into the trap of 'we need a short stage, lets shoot el prez'.  They don't all have to have options either to be interesting or challenging and movement can be limited to a few steps:

Strong hand weak hand;

Use mini targets or a mixture of mini and full size;

All steel stage or some little steel behind big steel or some near and some far;

No shoots behind steel;

Creative variations on classifiers (add reloads, 1or 3 shots per target instead of 2, mini targets etc.);

Moving targets - options on engagement order of targets, activate and then need to move to engage the mover or another target;

A target or 2 that can seen from multiple positions with only a step or 2 - can I get a quicker or better shot if I move?

Options such as do I take 2 steps back and engage all the targets or run/move forward half a dozen steps and have easier/harder shots from 1 or multiple positions or shooting on the move?

Unloaded start/table starts/mags and gun retrieved from different spots a couple of steps away e.g. start seated at a table loaded or unloaded, mags on the table or the belt. Targets might only be seen if you stand up you might see more of the target if you do stand.  Maybe only see part of the targets from above the table with the majority clearly visible under the table. Put a steel in with or without a mover, maybe a mandatory reload before engaging the mover. What if the steel could only be seen from above the table?  What about if it could be and seen from under neath or to the side of the table as well?