Major Stage Design Peeve

[George]

The stage design style that I hate with a passion is the memory test stage. You know the type, ostensibly freestyle, but only because many paper targets can be seen from multiple places. Additionally, each shooting area will show an entirely different combo of previously viewed "and" unseen before targets. This type of stage can typically be recognized by the shooters doing their walk-thru so many times that it wears ruts in the ground.

What really peeves me about this type of stage design is that no matter how well you plan it, you still have no good way of knowing what was engaged already unless you keep track with a checklist type approach. This just ain't freestyle, it's not practical either. If you want stuff available from multiple positions so the shooter can make up his own mind about where to engage it, use falling steel, or frangibles for this type of thing, thank yew!

If I put two solid A's into a 10-15 yard paper target at the first port I get to and that same target is still visible at the next three ports but from totally different angles, what is that all about? Am I supposed to remember each target by the way it looks from different angles? Or am I supposed to look for my .38 caliber holes at 10-15 yards to verify previous engagement? If it's hit properly, it should not be visible anymore, anywhere else in the stage unless it is "supposed" to be engaged again. Otherwise, you really oughta' put big block numbers over each target so the shooters can visually inventory them as they bag them, T1, T2, etc... ;-)

I am not sure how many of you feel this way, but I am pretty sure I am not alone here.

[Jake Di Vita]

To me it's all part of the game.

Stage breakdown is 1 of the 4 things I believe you need to know to be a success IPSC shooter.....Sometimes very complex stages really seperate the wheat from the chass in matches. It's a skill that can be improved just like anything else.

[Chuck Anderson]

I like stages like this as long as there is time enough to get the stage down. At Area 2 they didn't allow you to walk the stages on Thursday, like they have the last 4 years I went, that was a waste coming in a day early. It was very difficult to get some of the stages in the 5 minutes that was given. Some RO's wouldn't even let you walk the stage while they were replacing targets. The worst of this was Stage 2. Multiple exposures from different positions but it was all in a box about 16' x 8'. Every shooter in the squad trying different ways and stumbling over each other. I knew when I got up that I didn't have a good plan and it bit me, 2 Mikes and an FTE.

[davidball]

I'm with Jake and Lawman . . . legitimate test emphasizing the mental aspect of the sport, but give us time to figure it out. "Rock City" at Area 6 was the same as the stages described at Area 2 and we only had the walk through and time between shooters. First couple of guys really struggled or just all out crashed and burned. I was fortunate to shoot 7th - figured it out about the time the 5th shooter finished.

(Area 6 has indicated that stage inspections other than just the 5 minute walk through will be allowed this year.)

[BigDave]

I don't mind them, but I do think (whoa, pun alert) they do have a tendency to get carried away. Memorization as part of stage breakdown is one thing, but when an entire stage pivots on it may be completely another

...seperate the wheat from the chass...

btw...it is chaff, not chass

[Intel6]

I am a relativley new shooter to this also and the Area 2 was about the 10th match I have ever shot so some of those types of stages were tough on me.

When I shot Stage 2, I managed to do OK but really didn't have a plan. I was able to shoot at everything but ended up with some mikes. On stage 6 I knew that engaging the same targets multiple times from different prots was goign to be a problem. Because of the ports I was able to divide up the course and keep myself from double shooting targets. On my squad there were some shooters who put 6 shots on some targets.

I know that this can't always be done (like in stage 2) but I was able to make it work on 6.

This is just one of the many things I learned shooting this match.

Neal in AZ

[lynn jones]

i was over challenged on stages 2 & 4. i needed more time to block it them out...i'm still trying to block them... from my memory.

i can back late from lunch and i was selected to go first on stage 4. not fun.

lynn

[BSeevers]

I like them and any test of skills.

It seperates the wheeze from the chapped.

Hi Jake

[itento]

George, I couldn't agree with you more. One of my goals as Match Director is to design stages that would help prepare a new shooter to compete at Section, Area and National level matches. After Area 6 See Rock City however, I vowed our club would never have a memory test stage. At our local matches we put on some pretty challenging stages (like 20 ft Cooper Tunnels, shooting while seated backwards from a moving golf cart, targets hidden by a bunch of no shoots, Texas Star, see pictures at: http://www.tristateshooter.org/12_nov_2005_match ) but we emphasize gun handling and shooting skills over choreography. I have never heard anyone say that they "really enjoyed" or had fun on this type of stage.

[George]

Sometimes very complex stages really seperate the wheat from the chaff in matches

I still don't buy the idea of stages that allow multiple presentations of the same paper targets as being very good stage design practice unless they are meant to be engaged every time they are exposed to the competitor and to have all the hits made on them scored.

Complexity is one thing, but allowing paper targets to be accidentally engaged multiple times within a COF is ridiculous IMO. The same effect can be achieved using targets that go away after they have been sucessfully engaged (falling steel and frangibles). What is the idea behind demanding that a shooter memorize a layout and what the target count is just to avoid accidental re-engagment of a target?

I see no reason for designing stages like this. Memory can be tested just fine by hiding targets so they need movement to find. Exposing the same "paper" target to the shooter over and over from multiple viewing positions strikes me as just plane lazy stage design practice and does nothing to further the concept of Freestyle. I believe Freestyle stage design is getting a bad name from association with this type of thing.

The wording "as they appear" needs to be changed to "as they keep appearing, again and again and again..."

[zhunter]

I would prefer to have my gun and shooting skills challenged. A No-Shoot is supposed to be a good guy right, well, if a brown target to be engaged is a bad guy, and I already shot him twice, he should NOT still be visible from the next shooting area!!!

This is stupid and bad stage design. It is supposed to be "practical shooting" Well, what is practical about the aforementioned type of design? If you want to test shooting skills from different angles, just require best 6 on paper!!!

Let's get down to shooting, movement and gun skills!!!!!!!!!!!!

[scorch]

One of my goals as Match Director is to design stages that would help prepare a new shooter to compete at Section, Area and National level matches.

Exactly what a club match is supposed to do, Well said. We run our club match Just like a big match, same type of stages and rules for those stages, Don't belive in "well it a club match lets do what ever".

Iam with you George I hate the MAX memory stage, it takes away from the shooting.

Edited November 17, 2005 by scorch

[Viggen]

The max memory stages make you work.

The shooting has to be there as always but it forces mental effort into this game - I think it's a good thing. Combined with some more open or run-n-gun stuff and it all works out nicely.

Area 2 was hard but personally I wouldn't change anythig about any of the stages except maybe my own match results, and my chance for that comes next year.

[Genghis]

I hate these stages too, but I've reluctantly concluded that they're part of the game. I know the cure is to rehearse sufficiently so you burn the stage down. I have a philosophical problem with rehearsing a gunfight in advance, but that's part of this game too.

At this point my strategery for dealing with these stages is to break the targets into groups. Then I just have to remember to engage each group, and I'll be okay. In other words, plan your work, then work your plan.

This requires me to be consciously rehearsing the mantra as I step to the line ("Four, three, reload, two steel, two, four"). For my sins in relying on conscious thought I will assess myself two raps across the knuckles from BE with a virtual ruler.

At Area 4 I sh*t the bed on one of these stages, leaving 2 or 3 bad guys to fight another day. I got a reshoot later because the RO forgot to write the score down.

[eric nielsen]

At a big tournament, those stages put a cloud over entire squads - not all the time but often. Some people will always yield more time than they should to their squad-mates, others will always take more than their fair share of viewing time.

It's enough to turn a lot of brand-new friendships into not-so-friendly situations. I usually do well on the stages & I hate every minute of it while I'm there.

[L9X25]

One more vote for the "I hate them camp" ... I usually shoot them fairly well, and seldom forget a target, but hate them just the same.

I agree with Eric completely that they cause turmoil within the squad as everyone argues about how to shoot them first and they fights for the prep time to commit everything to memory (once you decide how you are going to shoot them). I would not miss them at all if they disappeared from future matches.

I recently shot the S. Florida Championships and the stages were refreshingly "old school" in that they were shooting tests without a lot of non-shooting related puzzles to solve. The stages offered plenty of varied props and choices of where you engaged the targets but the target locations were fairly distinct in their placement and recognition within the stage.

Edited November 17, 2005 by L9X25

[lynn jones]

i really enjoyed the stages at Area 2. however, i would have liked to be able to view the stages other than the 5 min limit. one of the big problems was that the shooting positions were blocked from the spectators by solid barricades, and the ro's tried to keep everyone off the stage.

lynn

p.s. i know it's hard for MD, RO, and set up crew to keep in mind that at major matches, the competitors like to film. when solid barricades a blocking the view, the film stinks. maybe the set up crews can keep this in mind.

Edited November 17, 2005 by lynn jones

[Merlin Orr]

IMHFO - They BLOW!

[Ron Ankeny]

IMHFO - They BLOW!

You are being more polite than I would be. I am all for having a few targets that can be engaged from more than one position if it is done to add some flexibility in strategy for shooters across divisions. But the design must remain user friendly, unless the intent is to just piss everyone off. My experience with "tough" memory stages is the designer gets too carried away, and even though the intent might be good, invariably the stages suck azz.

[Flexmoney]

I like complex stages (when there is time to review them). I like the problem solving aspect of the game. I like options.

I don't mind multiple exposures of targets (properly done).

I hate true "memory" stages (and, I'm not bad at them). They tend to give the local shooters an advantage. And, I'd rather see the stage test the shooting more.

----------------

I have been looking at the Production results for Stage 2 from the Area 2 match and wondering...now it makes sense.

Angus (more power to him) shot that stage 5 seconds faster than Dave...and 12+ seconds faster than the rest of the Production field.

Further, looking at how many 30+ penalties there are, I would have to guess that many shooter just didn't get that stage figured out in the time allotted.

A stage like that becomes a huge part of the overall standings.

[Nik Habicht]

Sometimes very complex stages really seperate the wheat from the chaff in matches

I see no reason for designing stages like this. Exposing the same "paper" target to the shooter over and over from multiple viewing positions strikes me as just plane lazy stage design practice and does nothing to further the concept of Freestyle. I believe Freestyle stage design is getting a bad name from association with this type of thing.

The wording "as they appear" needs to be changed to "as they keep appearing, again and again and again..."

Actually I'll give you a reason: Having the same targets be available from more than one position, gives shooters choices about where to engage targets from. An open shooter may be able to shoot the entire stage in order --- while a production/L10/revolver shooter can skip a target here and there and get them from somewhere else, to better plan his reloads. Reason #2 is that when done well, it allows some people to run all over the stage getting close to the targets for their shots, while others can walk a shorter distance and make longer shots. To each his own......

[George]

I agree with the feeling that multiple exposures of paper targets are OK "IF" they are designed right. But, seldom do I find that to be the case in reality. In most memory test stages, there are far too many ways available to make it a fair contest in the time allowed. If a squad is still confused as to their plans after the five minute walk-thru is up, then the stage is a PITA memory test and not a fair test of shooting skill sets overall. In these cases, the wheat is separated from the chaff according to skill sets that are not covered by DVC. The match then becomes a non-shooting skill biased affair if very many of the higher point stages are designed this way.

As Flex pointed out, the disparity can be very great if one person get's a stage like this memorized faster than the rest. I think I will go work with some inkblot flash cards and see if my pattern recognition skills can be improved. It looks like my actual shooting skills gained through dry firing and physical training won't matter as much anymore if this stage design trend continues to take over at the bigger matches ;-)

[hopalong]

Nick hit the nail on the head, remember not everyone has 20 plus rounds to shoot a stage, and having targets that appear from different postions multiple times keeps stages friendly for all the lesser round capacity shooters.

Memory stages that require half an hour to figure out what target to shoot first is way overboard and shame on the course designer for doing so!

I don't mind memory stages, and usually do OK on them.

If you as a course designer insist on having this type of stage, allow a little longer walk through and then put a speed shoot in behind it to "catch up" the match pace.

If you keep having trouble with this type of stage, change over to Revolver, they will all be that way to a certain extent.

HOPALONG

Now shooting a "Square gun"

[XRe]

You know the type, ostensibly freestyle, but only because many paper targets can be seen from multiple places.

If you think about it - courses that only allow a target to be seen from exactly one spot limit the possibilities that you have in terms of choosing how to shoot. Now, instead of "take target A from here, targets B and C from there", it's "move to spot A, then spot C, then spot B" or "move to spot C, then spot B, then spot A" or whatever - that's the limit of the freestyle aspect of that stage. As others have said in other threads - forced engagement through ports is synonymous with forced engagements from boxes. These situations are less freestyle than others.

You get the good with the bad. The more possibilities the course presents the shooters (in some people's vernacular - the more freestyle it becomes), the more important having a plan, proper stage planning, etc, become important and sometimes the differentiating factor on the stage.

Complexity is one thing, but allowing paper targets to be accidentally engaged multiple times within a COF is ridiculous IMO. The same effect can be achieved using targets that go away after they have been sucessfully engaged (falling steel and frangibles).

...

I see no reason for designing stages like this. Memory can be tested just fine by hiding targets so they need movement to find.

I like the falling target idea in this situation. Hiding targets to require movement is not really freestyle, but is, again, synonymous with boxes.

I agree with Sam and Nik on this - one good reason is to allow the shooter to find the best possible solution based on his/her skill set, division, equipment, etc. It *does* introduce complexity, and potentially frustration. I definitely have sympathy for you, on that point...

I personally feel that, if your match is going to incorporate these sorts of stages, you should be courteous to your shooters and allow them every possible chance to inspect the stages without interfering with the flow of the match. This has become, in recent years, the accepted practice, and goes a long way toward relieving Eric Nielsen's gripe that follows:

At a big tournament, those stages put a cloud over entire squads - not all the time but often.

...

It's enough to turn a lot of brand-new friendships into not-so-friendly situations.

Unfortunately, this is very true. As many have stated, 5 minutes is frequently not enough for the squad amoeba to work it's way through the stage to everyone's satisfaction and comfort level. Allowing stage inspections prior to the match, or after the day's shooting would go a long way to help alleviate this phenomenon. I was told by one shooter who went to A2 that they had a decent amount of animosity on their squad due to this issue - it was felt that some shooters became rude in their pursuit of finding the best solution in the 5 minutes allotted, apparently pushing other shooters out of positions, etc....

In these cases, the wheat is separated from the chaff according to skill sets that are not covered by DVC.

We have a lot of skills and practices within USPSA that do this that have nothing to do with the motto, George This game would quickly become mundane if all we did was shoot powerful (sort of) guns quickly and accurately...

[grassy knoll]

I would prefer to have my gun and shooting skills challenged. A No-Shoot is supposed to be a good guy right, well, if a brown target to be engaged is a bad guy, and I already shot him twice, he should NOT still be visible from the next shooting area!!!

This is stupid and bad stage design. It is supposed to be "practical shooting" Well, what is practical about the aforementioned type of design? If you want to test shooting skills from different angles, just require best 6 on paper!!!

Let's get down to shooting, movement and gun skills!!!!!!!!!!!!

shooting holes in cardboard with different value scoring areas while being timed make it more like a game than anything practical that I can imagine