6/28/18 New high hit factors and retired classifiers

[stick]

I have one classifier 08-02 (Steeler Standards) with a HF of 6.2951 for a 75.2588% for PCC.  The new percentage is 83.0674%.  I'm thinking it's all the reloads.

[3gunDQ]

I am a recent Open GM... judging by the new scores they should put me back in B  some of the new HHF are like whoa. 

[Paulie]

1 hour ago, 3gunDQ said:

I am a recent Open GM... judging by the new scores they should put me back in B  some of the new HHF are like whoa. 

 

Soul crushing post! 

[malobukov]

My current classification percentage in Production is 63.63%. If I re-calculate it today using the same hit factors and new high hit factors, I'm at 58.75%, back in C class.

Quote

"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

 

Overall average across all remaining production classifiers is about 2.9% (that's how much lower the new percentage is, based on the same hit factor).

[abigger04]

According to the new calculations, I lost about 2% across the board except for Fluffy’s Revenge 2 which I lost about 8%. Open division B class.

 

I know it’s not a huge deal, but it’s disappointing. 

[LeviSS]

23 hours ago, rowdyb said:

Mine dropped 9%. To go from 3% away from GM to the top of A class seems like a huge punch. At the thin end of the curve to overnight ask me to be 10-12% better now to make my goal just seems ridic.

Yeah.  I'm 3.5% from M in Production.  Now I have to shoot 8-18% better to score the same.  That sucks bad.  I can't believe they increased this much overnight with no notice.

[Flyingpig]

Theres going to be a lot of Ms getting their asses handed to them by As and Bs for the next couple of years...

[Flatland Shooter]

Now that I've had time to digest some of the changes, for the PCC competitor it appears that any hoser classifier has the HHF increase (sometimes significantly). 

 

My 98.6627% run on CM 06-05 "Fluffys Revenge 2" dropped to 77.3792% (HF = 13.0435).

 

However, if a classifier includes a mandatory reload the PCC HHF dropps. 

 

For example, my  15.3125 HF run on CM 06-03 "Can You Count" went from 92.02% to 98.21%.

 

The changes would not have dropped me down a class but its still humbling.

 

That's how the cookie crumbles.

[wtturn]

This is a good thing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[PatJones]

Seems when Foley talked about this a while ago he said most hadn't been adjusted in a election cycle or two.
 
IIRC he said they would be based on actual scores shot with some unspecified adjustment for outliers. Not everyone liked his lack of detail. Can't recall FB or the DP.

My understanding is the new HHF is the average of the top 10 scores ever shot. If there was an outlier, like a B class dude 10% higher than the top GM's, they threw that one out.

The high hit factor is supposed to be what the top shooters are capable of, this increases over time. Baseball standards and some of the ones hard ones came down, it'll be nice not shooting the same 10 "easy" classifiers at every monthly match.

[Beef15]

7 hours ago, wtturn said:

This is a good thing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
 

Yep, just long overdue so it seems extreme.

 

Often hear there's GMs then there's nationally competitive GMs, that'll always be to some extent, but if moving the goal post prevents compression at the top it's a good thing. Local shot a hundred on Pucker Factor last wknd in production, it's still 100 on the calculator today the talent is out there.

[B_RAD]

9 hours ago, wtturn said:

This is a good thing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
 

What was the reasoning?  Seriously, I don't know. I started shooting USPSA last year. Was it because over the last several years people have gotten better so more people started hitting 100% on each classifer? 

 

Just trying to understand it. Based on what I think the perceived problem was, it seems like the results adjustments were a little much. Someone said they basically take the best 10 runs (removed any "outliers" first). In my mind only using 10 to formulate the hhf seems like it's not enough. Not sure if that's really how it's done?  

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2018 by B_RAD

[Nathanb]

It’s something that should be done yearly to be honest. It also could be set up and automated and never have to be touched by human hands 

[Flatland Shooter]

Instead of adjusting the HHF on all those classifiers, they could have come up with a new class.  SUPER GRAND MASTER  (100% TO 110%).

 

A lot less math and a new goal to strive for.

[Paulie]

One aspect of IDPA that makes sense is the fact that the highest classification is reserved for people who have won a major match. Distinguished Master, IIRC. 

 

I wouldn’t mind that one bit. 

[wtturn]

What was the reasoning?  Seriously, I don't know. I started shooting USPSA last year. Was it because over the last several years people have gotten better so more people started hitting 100% on each classifer? 
 
Just trying to understand it. Based on what I think the perceived problem was, it seems like the results adjustments were a little much. Someone said they basically take the best 10 runs (removed any "outliers" first). In my mind only using 10 to formulate the hhf seems like it's not enough. Not sure if that's really how it's done?  
 
 
 

Some of these have never been adjusted or have only been adjusted once.

When you have a sufficiently large enough set of classifier runs that are disproportionately GM or even exceed 100% then they need to be adjusted. In some cases, adjusted aggressively.

There is nothing illegitimate about the process just by virtue of it being aggressive. That's what was needed to make the system reflect its own goals accurately.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[iGun]

I’m a Production M, and have been working toward G. I think I’m going to set that goal aside for a while.

[tanks]

I think the new HHFs will force people to practice draws and reloads more as those are the low hanging fruit in most cases for classifiers (for those below M). That is not going to help much in matches though as most of the time one is moving when performing those actions.

Edited June 30, 2018 by tanks

[rowdyb]

If there is a disproportionate difference between match skills and classifier skills why even have classifiers? Just base it off if major match performance. 

 

Oh wait....

[malobukov]

Quote

If there is a disproportionate difference between match skills and classifier skills why even have classifiers?

There is some difference between classification and major match performance. The comparison below is for 2017 area matches combined in production division.

 

I don't think it's disproportional, tough. Match percent is pegged to the winner of that particular match, so even GMs on average are getting less than 100% simply by construction.

[rowdyb]

Do that curve for national level matches and it gets worse.

[malobukov]

4 hours ago, rowdyb said:

Do that curve for national level matches and it gets worse.

2017 CZ USA Iron Sights Nationals, Production:

[B_RAD]

One person (GM) finished within 95% of the winner. 

 

I'm sure that everything to do with el prez being too easy!  

Edited July 2, 2018 by B_RAD

[Paulie]

Revised with a few corrections. 

 

El Prez original HHF corrected.

”Six” is not retired....just 8% higher. 

All this is based on Limited division. 

 

[Paulie]

Double tap! 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Paulie