Gaming ?

[Flatland Shooter]

Steve,

Now thats an excellent example of shooting the course description, not what the rest of the squad thinks the course designer intent was.

I would like to shoot one of his stages one day.

Bill

[ihatepickles]

On any stage with moving targets, I always check the entire CoF for a position that these can be engaged statically before they're activated.

YOU CAN DO THAT ??? not joking..can you??

The 2004 rules allows this. There is a penalty for not activating a target, but not for shooting it before it's activated. I commonly use this for drop turners although sometimes you can find situations were swingers aren't protected by cover or no-shoots. Just be sure to go back after you've fired your last shot and activate the targets, since you've already fired your last shot this is happening off the clock.

The proposed 2008 rulebook assesses a penalty for shooting a mover before activation. I personally think it promotes lazy stage design and we'll see a lot of movers placed out in the open because of this rule. I know the stated intent is to make setup easier, but in reality we're killing freestyle with a death of 1000 cuts. Many course designers purposefully create a CoF that the movers can be engaged statically and I suppose under the proposed 2008 rules they still could, but their written briefing would have to state "shooting movers before activation is permitted" and the whole match would specifically look for those shots because the WSB said it was there.

Choreographed shooting sucks.

[ipscbob]

Opinions vary. I don't know you, or how far you'll take gaming in order to win. I do feel, though, that if the intent is to measure shooting skills on a equal basis, gaming a stage by doing somthing other than what you know was intended, doesn't meet that goal. We all want to win, but some or us prefer to do it on the basis of our skills rather than our trickery. Of course, there are degrees to all such things and I'm not in a position to say where the line should be drawn for anyone but myself.

You're out there to win. I'm out there to do the best I can according to my best. I choose to act within my understanding of what was intended for the stage, demonstrating speed and shooting skills rather than my ability to take advantage of loopholes. I prefer to compete with others who are doing the same. When I win that first match, I'd much rather be patted on the back with a smile and complemented on my skills, than cursed for the tricks I had to use because my skills weren't good enough. YMMV.

Lee

Depends on the point of view I guess. The intent for me, is to shoot the most number of points in the shortest time. Period. I dont get wrapped up in how we are here to test shooting skills on a LEVEL playing field. Truth is there is NEVER a level playing field in life. I look at a stage as an opportunity to compete on all levels which, by the way, includes intellect. You may feel more at home in IDPA where the scenario and the intent of the stage designer really matters.

[Waltermitty]

Shooting in Limited 6 Division presents its own set of challenges; many course designers can't help themselves from setting up "8 through this port, 8 through that port and 8 through the last port" stages.

If I run through a 25 round COF, engage and hit all activators, swingers, and static targets but refuse to reload and shoot a disappearing target someone "intended" me to shoot twice (figure it adds 2 seconds and change to reload and shoot a 625) is that an inappropriate exploitation of a loophole in the rules?

This means I'm always looking for creative ways to divide all stages by 6 or do other things to make the stage work for me. If I game a stage and you beat me with your 22 round limited gun, am I still a gamer? How about if I beat you? How do you decide?

Oh, and I take credit (partial anyway) for creating the need for the new rule that will say you can't run outside a fault line through a course of fire as long as you don't shoot again until you get back into the shooting area.

Wanna see my CRO card?

[Merlin Orr]

Opinions vary. I don't know you, or how far you'll take gaming in order to win. I do feel, though, that if the intent is to measure shooting skills on a equal basis, gaming a stage by doing somthing other than what you know was intended, doesn't meet that goal. We all want to win, but some or us prefer to do it on the basis of our skills rather than our trickery. Of course, there are degrees to all such things and I'm not in a position to say where the line should be drawn for anyone but myself.

You're out there to win. I'm out there to do the best I can according to my best. I choose to act within my understanding of what was intended for the stage, demonstrating speed and shooting skills rather than my ability to take advantage of loopholes. I prefer to compete with others who are doing the same. When I win that first match, I'd much rather be patted on the back with a smile and complemented on my skills, than cursed for the tricks I had to use because my skills weren't good enough. YMMV.

Lee

Depends on the point of view I guess. The intent for me, is to shoot the most number of points in the shortest time. Period. I dont get wrapped up in how we are here to test shooting skills on a LEVEL playing field. Truth is there is NEVER a level playing field in life. I look at a stage as an opportunity to compete on all levels which, by the way, includes intellect. You may feel more at home in IDPA where the scenario and the intent of the stage designer really matters.

+ 1

on everything but the divisive statement about "feel more at home in IDPA.."

[GentlemanJim]

Never forget .. Old age and TREACHERY will win out over youth and skill

Jim

[ipscbob]

+ 1

on everything but the divisive statement about "feel more at home in IDPA.."

Just an honest suggestion....Not PC but honest!

[Flatland Shooter]

On any stage with moving targets, I always check the entire CoF for a position that these can be engaged statically before they're activated.

YOU CAN DO THAT ??? not joking..can you??

The 2004 rules allows this. There is a penalty for not activating a target, but not for shooting it before it's activated. I commonly use this for drop turners although sometimes you can find situations were swingers aren't protected by cover or no-shoots. Just be sure to go back after you've fired your last shot and activate the targets, since you've already fired your last shot this is happening off the clock.

The proposed 2008 rulebook assesses a penalty for shooting a mover before activation. I personally think it promotes lazy stage design and we'll see a lot of movers placed out in the open because of this rule. I know the stated intent is to make setup easier, but in reality we're killing freestyle with a death of 1000 cuts. Many course designers purposefully create a CoF that the movers can be engaged statically and I suppose under the proposed 2008 rules they still could, but their written briefing would have to state "shooting movers before activation is permitted" and the whole match would specifically look for those shots because the WSB said it was there.

Choreographed shooting sucks.

Good evening ihatepickles,

I guess I'm unusually dense this evening but I don't understand your statement "Just be sure to go back after you've fired your last shot and activate the targets, since you've already fired your last shot this is happening off the clock."

As an example, if pulling a rope activates a swinger, do you fire your last shot and then step back (if necessary) and pull the rope? When the RO says if you are finished, unload and show clear, you just do not unload until you've pulled the rope?

Thanks for the clarification.

Bill

[ipscbob]

Good evening ihatepickles,

I guess I'm unusually dense this evening but I don't understand your statement "Just be sure to go back after you've fired your last shot and activate the targets, since you've already fired your last shot this is happening off the clock."

As an example, if pulling a rope activates a swinger, do you fire your last shot and then step back (if necessary) and pull the rope? When the RO says if you are finished, unload and show clear, you just do not unload until you've pulled the rope?

Thanks for the clarification.

Bill

Yup, currently this would be legal unless otherwise stated in the course description. I always look for this situation during a walk through and will take advantage of it if possible.

[shred]

What you notice after a while is that at the top level matches, the outright 'gaming' opportunities (like a box that doesn't say it has to be closed, swingers you can get static, etc) tend to fade away. So much that the rare time somebody does find a loophole, it's talked about for months..

[ihatepickles]

As an example, if pulling a rope activates a swinger, do you fire your last shot and then step back (if necessary) and pull the rope? When the RO says if you are finished, unload and show clear, you just do not unload until you've pulled the rope?

Yup, currently this would be legal unless otherwise stated in the course description. I always look for this situation during a walk through and will take advantage of it if possible.

Yep, after you're done firing just walk back to whatever activates the movers and let the mover go. Keep your muzzle downrange and finger off the trigger, no need to rush because it's not on the clock. Most ROs will know really quickly what's going on but if they ask you "If you are finished..." simply say "not finished" or stay silent and do what you gotta do. Then once you've activated the target, unload and show clear.

I agree with Shred's comment, most big matches have their stages pretty well debugged.

[Flexmoney]

I was going to let all of these go without comment...so we didn't get the pot stirred too much, but the cat is out of the bag now. So...I'll address these.

Examples of gaming:

The CoF had 1 piece of steel at the end of a visual barrier zip-zag. The front part of the stage had fault lines on the left and right to prevent early engagement of the steel. I stepped out of the fault lines far enough to see the final steel and engaged it in one shot, took my procedural and saved 5 seconds. The last steel netted me -5 points (5 for the knocked down steel and -10 for the procedural). A meager 5 point penalty for saving 5 seconds I'll take every time, I'd probably take that penalty to save 3 seconds too.

Good example. Good use of gaming.

On CoF with stage briefings that read "unloaded gun on table, slide forward and hammer down", I always prop the pistol up with the magazine I intend to load the gun with, like an A-frame.

We've had threads on this very issue. I wouldn't allow a shooter to add anything too, nor take away from, the stage.

If it's a gun-in-a-box start and the written briefing doesn't say "lid closed" I don't close the lid.

Good example. Good use of gaming.

On any stage with moving targets, I always check the entire CoF for a position that these can be engaged statically before they're activated.

As a stage designer, I often like to offer up the D-zone from an awkward angle...and let the shooter decide how to handle it.

The stage description read something like "Engage array A from the left side of the barricade, B from the right side, and array C from the opposite side of the barricade from the previous array. Shooter may engage arrays in any order." So I started on the right side of the barricade, engaged C and then engaged B without switching sides, after all there was no array engaged previous to me engaging C so that whole "opposite side of barricade from the previous array" didn't apply. I finished by shooting A from the left side of the barricade.

The very nature of that kind of stage is against "freestyle". But, as a stage designer, the words "only" and "then" can/should be used to force the...(gasp...gag)...intention.