What makes a "good" stage design?

[BigDave]

I've read here several times that people would either like to see equipment rules change to level the field (I'm paraphrasing) or better stage design.  Specifically regarding stage design, what makes a "good" stage that we all can agree on?

Is it tight shots?  Distance?  Timed Fire?  Virgininia Count?  Props?  Low Ports?  Only 6 shots from any one position? 8? 10? 12?  Mandatory Reloads?

We keep talking about "good" stage design, but I've rarely read where someone actually comes out an gives specific examples of what "good" is.  Is "good" a stage that challenges all shooters, regardless of division or classification.  I find this interesting b/c a A, M or GM certainly finds an El Prez less of a challenge than does a U, D or C shooter?

Lets hear some thoughts.

[3quartertime]

A good stage design to me is one that:

Doesn't over stress the RO's with 180's or built in accidents waiting to happen.

Has a high round count

Lets a shooter game,  whether through reloads or target selection

Doesn't take forever to score

And above all doesn't pander to production or limited 10 shooters.  

I believe 8 round neutral stage design is killing IPSC.  Stages should be competitive not friendly.  If a production shooter has to reload more than thats part of his game.  Each class competes against it's self.  When a newer shooter watches a guy like BigDave hose through a stage with his high cap blaster they get 'jacked up'.  THAT'S what grows this sport.  Adrenalin!!!.   Defensive wanna be's can shoot IDPA.  IPSC is a game.  ( should have saved this for a FFW I guess )

I make stages for the game.  Our Dec. match had a 41 count stage.  Yea it was high cap friendly but it was planned so that reloading was easily done on the move.

Everyone that I talked to love it.  

[Shooter Grrl]

Here's an old post I did on this verrah same subject!

http://www.brianenos.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...=9&topic=50

[3quartertime]

This is an excellent post.  I thought it would be good to actually copy it here to make it more readable.

Okay, so here's the deal...

If you're going to design a stage - READ THE RULEBOOK.  Know the rulebook, understand the rulebook, BE the rulebook.  That way you'll understand what you can and CAN NOT do which would prevent 98% of the hassles during a match.

If you're going to design a stage - LEARN TO WRITE procedures that are foolproof easy to follow and follows the rulebook.  You'll prevent 98% of the troubles during a match.

If you're going to design a stage - remember that you're a DAMNED shooter too.  Make them fun, interesting and challenging.  But do NOT make them so hard that no one can complete it without ruining their confidence!!!!

If you're going to design a stage, remember that you're a DAMNED shooter too.  Make them fun, interesting and challenging, make them fun, interesting and challenging, make them fun, interesting and challenging.

YES I REPEATED MYSELF ON PURPOSE!!!  It's an important point!

Most course designer feel that shooters want variety and they have to be different - NOPE!  No way!  We want FUN, INTERESTING AND CHALLENGING.  I do NOT want to shoot through barrels on 8 stages cause that's all the designers could think of that was challening.

I do NOT want to shoot through ports for 8 stages!

I do not want to SQUAT down through 8 stages for those damned low ports - that ain't fun!

If you can challenge me, then I usually have fun.  But I want shooting challenges, NOT PHYSICAL challenges.  I already KNOW I'm physically unable to do alot of things, but I can shoot - so test my shooting skills, please, not my ability to get up off the ground as a starting position.  It WILL take me longer to do this, no doubt about it.  And when I can't win the match because of the physical challenges YOU designed in your stage, I'm NOT having fun!

You volunteered to design that stage.  Take responsibility for the mistakes.  Realize that shooters will push the envelope at all costs, and when one finds your mistake, thank him for teaching you something new today.  And really LEARN from the lesson.  If your weakness was the procedure, write it better next time.  If you blew it on a rule, READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS RANT AGAIN.

And remember that this is FUN and a learning experience and smile and be polite and do NOT take it personally.  We'll all be much better off!

***************************************

WOW - I've wanted to say that for about 3 years.  Thanks for the forum where I can get it out!

I'm off to shoot a match - wish me luck :-)  

K

-----

Kath =^..^=

I are a kawledge stoodent  

[Storm]

3QT & SG - Good posts!

Dave-Anything you mentioned can make a good stage or a bad stage.

First, I think you need to look at the match as a whole rather than an individual stage. The best matches have a mixture of elements in different stages. Some short courses, some medium courses & some long courses.  Like SG said, don't get hung up on the same element for every stage. No, every stage does not need low ports. But, an occasional one is OK.

I'll disagree with 3QT on high round count. Some of the best stages I've shot have been 16-20 round COF's. But, I wouldn't want a whole match of 16 round COF's. Round count isn't what makes a stage good. High round count stages can be great fun. So can 8 round speed shoots with a disappearing target in them. Variety is the spice of life.

For a field course, the best stages have a mixture of elements. Some tight or long shots and some easy targets. Some steel, some paper.  An occasional no-shoot, hardcover or moving target. Variety is the spice of life.

Targets that can be taken from more than one position or on the move are good too. It gives people options on how they want to shoot the stage. The best field courses are the ones that have half a dozen or more ways to shoot them. Let me figure out how I want to shoot the COF. Did I mention, variety is the spice of life?

[shred]

I agree with both of yall

High round count can be fun or it can suck.  Throwing extra targets downrange to add round count is stupid, especially if it's a 3+ target 'array' or closer than 7 yards.  Use in moderation.  Look at round counts from the RG Nationals or Florida open.  Those were good, challenging, fun (mostly) stages.

Variety is good.  Options are even better (shoot it from here or there?).  Moderation is key, especially with movers, steel and other fancy props.

Definately look at the match as a whole.  One hard-to- reset, slow-to-run or slow-to-score stage can block up the match for everybody.  Likewise three table-starts in a row can be tedious, although one might be fun.

Look hard at target "arrays".  Can they be separated?  Moved vertically?  Partially obscured?

DON'T use stage design to make political points. Starting with an unloaded gun locked in a drawer with only loose ammunition is not good stage design.

Think about pre-painting a bunch of hard cover targets for club match use.  One thing that's very common in larger matches that's frequently missing in local matches is hard cover.

(Edited by shred at 10:02 am on Mar. 2, 2003)

[Ross Chevalier]

So IMHO, I prefer shooting challenges that provide challenge to all levels of competitors, stages that let new shooters get through without zeroing, and master shooters to compete with each other.  My personal favorite techniques are using multiple target appearances and effective use of vision barriers and sufficient distance that if you have not planned effectively you could end up shooting the same target twice - the penalty here is time.  I also try to avoid all hose or all accuracy stages and prefer to do change-ups as it keeps up the mental aspects of the game.  Also I prefer wherever possible to give opportunities for capable shooters to shoot on the move but still provide the capability for newer shooters to get through the stage without tanking if shooting on the move is outside their skill base.  Excessive use of penalty targets or targets for the sake of targets annoy me, but again this is only my opinion.

From a match/RO perspective, no traps, easy to score and not set up to cause arbitrations.

Good stages are hard work and part of the gratification comes from top shooters and new shooters coming off the line and saying that they enjoyed the stage.

Cheers,

Ross

[Jeeper]

I am curious about what people think makes one stage fun while others suck. Do you prefer movement, various possible approaches, fast hoser stages, difficult targets, steel and paper.......? I guess the better question might be...What makes a stage bad? Just curious!

[Nik Habicht]

BAD --- Every shooter is forced to shoot the stage basically the same way by course design.

Good --- Targets are visible from multiple shooting positions and there are choices to be made on engagement order. Stages that require one to cover lots of ground have lots of targets available to be engaged on the move. Matches should have stages that test speed and have stages that test accuracy....

[Rufus The Bum]

BAD: 1. Poorly designed stages which are nothing more than 24 round

stand and blasts.

2. IDPA "crossover" courses

3. VERY low shooting positions of more than 6 shots

Good: 1. Short range shots combined with medium to long range shots.

2. Multiple shooting solutions

3. Straight-Forward stages, no gimmick props

4. Fast, easy to reset stages

[dajarrel]

Stages that have a constantly changing target presentation are good. Short shots immediatly changing to long shots, high/low shots mixed with no-shoots. Not to make it difficult.... well yes. to make it difficult. Makes you take the time to shoot the target and puts a premium on accuracy.

Not to say that I don't like a speed shoot. I love to shoot a Bill Drill or El prez. But, although I have built them, too many "stand and shoot a 48 round cof from one position" courses, can get boring.

Also, as much as I hate to see a cof with alot of steel plates, I love to shoot steel. It is probably the area I need the most work in.

I have been shooting my revolver since October and part of my challenge in a COF is to reduce or eliminate standing reloads. I enjoy a revo neutral course but I don't want them built jsut because I'm shooting my revolver. My competition is against the other one or two guys that shoot the revo.

I guess I'm through ramblin' now!!!!

dj

[shred]

Bad (in a big match): "Memory" stages or any other sort of stage where the most efficient prop-timing isn't learned until the second day, after which everybody yet to shoot knows it (one of my pet peeves)

Most people only say 'Wow, that was fun" out loud after extreme hosing, FWIW.

[Lycanthrope]

Hosing on the run until the front sight melts off!

Not very distingushed, but nothing brings a smile like showering the gallery with hot brass.

[wide45]

I love short (8-16rnd) field courses. Sadly, they are rare.

Little memory needed, but no margin for error.

Fun is lots of movement, but never so far as to reach full run.

Props can be fun, but we are here to shoot, not carry the dummy, or throw the grenade into the bucket.

[EricW]

Short courses = Boooooooring! (I'm talking distance, not round count) USPSA either needs to come up with a 1/2 to 2/3 scale target or people need to start digging out their damned bays. I never realized how good we had it in Oregon.

I want to move to Arizona: sunshine *and* big bays. The best of both worlds.

[Guest Larry Cazes]

I like long field courses of 20 - 30 rounds with a mix of short up-close paper arrays and long shots on both steel and paper. Seems like I'm one of the first to mention this but I also like an all out sprint between positions. Gets the adrenaline flowing!

[mpolans]

I like all sorts of stages. The only REALLY bad stage is found at a match where all the stages are the same. Ideally, I think every good match should have the following:

1. Thinking stages; like a puzzle where there are multiple solutions that might not be immediately obvious.

2. Speed shoots; mindless hosing with minimal movement.

3. Field courses with a fair amount of movement, but minimal regulation of where to shoot...i.e. more fault lines, less shooting boxes.

4. Stages that fall in between the two above, close AND far (30+yard poppers, etc.) Ideally, these will feature a choice to engage targets at different distances. You can try to shoot them farther away and free of hardcover/no-shoots or you can run up closer to shoot, but the angles change so that they're partially obscured.

5. A standard exercise with: at least one string at 40-50 yards, at least one string requiring a mandatory reload, at least one string strong hand only, at least one string weak hand only, at least one string requiring kneeling, and at least one string requiring going prone.

[Shooter Grrl]

Moderators note: Combined an old discussion with the new one and moved it to the proper forum!