Multi Gun Scoring

[BPiatt]

I couldn't decide where to post this on BE but I just wanted to put this out to all of you.

Last week, the Combat Weapons Team cadets at the West Point Military Academy held a memorial / fundraiser match for

a fallen soldier that was on their team. About 115 shooters showed up and from what I saw had a great time.

What I wanted to post was my impression on the scoring. This match was scored with a version of the VICKERS system. This was my first exposure to the Vickers and I really enjoyed it. It is very similar to how the old SOF matches were scored. Time based scoring with a minimum of 2 hits per target. Each point down added 0.5 seconds to your time. Penalties weren't too drastic but I believe differed from what IDPA posts on their website. Example: 2 D shits did not neutralize the target, misses and procedureals were different. At the end of the match, I helped Linda Chico with the scoring. She did it all on a simple Excel spreadsheet. They were complete within minutes of the last score sheet entering the scoring office.

Personally, I'd like to see more matches scored with this system. The current IMG system rewards pure speed too much, which in turn, promotes mediocre shooting. Let's face it, with the IMG system, we're happy to see 2 D hits.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Bruce Piatt

[uscbigdawg]

Bruce,

I agree. But the reward for speed is exacerbated even more when IMGA matches factor out the time into 100 points. Then you can have a long stage be just as worthwhile is a speed shoot. Completely negates the value and skill set on each stage. A cumulative time scoring system would be easier and one that definitely rewards accuracy (or punishes poor shooting).

Frankly, scoring for all of our sports should only need to be done on an Excel Spreadsheet. It's more shooter and spectator friendly. You have immediate feedback on who's leading who, etc. You don't have to calculate hit factors, etc. and you are still rewarding accuracy.

Some friends and I are working on a new shooting game where we award power and accuracy and it's on a time plus penalties format.

Rich

Edited October 20, 2007 by uscbigdawg

[StealthyBlagga]

Oh man, I was wondering when this idea would come crawling out of the woodwork. Cumulative time is a crappy way to score 3-gun, because it places hugely disproportionate weight on the long stages. In the context of a 20 second speed shoot (e.g. a rifle/pistol hoser), the guy who finds a way to shave 5 seconds off the stage is a god. On a 150 second long stage (e.g. long-range rifle), that same 5 seconds is in the noise. With cumulative time (IDPA, Vickers, whatever fancy name you want to use), the whole match is decided by only one or two stages... we might as well shitcan all the short hoser stages and save ourselves the time and the ammo. I would strongly oppose this kind of nonsense, and would not bother to travel to a match that used such scoring.

I see nothing wrong with the IMGA time-plus scoring as it is used today, normalize to 100 points per stage. This scoring preserves the relative value of all stages - long and short. On what basis are people deciding that long-range rifle is the most important measure of "skill", to the virtual exclusion of pistol, shotgun and short-range rifle ?

[Religious Shooter]

CA 3 gun series uses the USPSA program. To make flippers work better they do not have circle mikes on flippers. Everybody is scored major. And they allow par times on long rifle stages.

Given that the stats people know how to use Excel and they know how to use the USPSA program... the USPSA program is more fault tolerant and is generally easier to use with multiple computers.

I think if you want to reward accuracy more... the modified USPSA scoring noted above is fairly easy to implement. The mechanics of the scoring is pretty much the same as a USPSA pistol match (where you don't have to differentiate if the target was a pistol/rifle/shotgun). The USPSA pistol scoring system has been used for countless pistol matches and is almost universally familiar to all shooters.

[BPiatt]

I think if you want to reward accuracy more... the modified USPSA scoring noted above is fairly easy to implement. The mechanics of the scoring is pretty much the same as a USPSA pistol match (where you don't have to differentiate if the target was a pistol/rifle/shotgun). The USPSA pistol scoring system has been used for countless pistol matches and is almost universally familiar to all shooters.

I know this is going to stir things up but...... I'll go on record by saying that I am not a fan of USPSA scoring and haven't been for years. My hatred for USPSA scoring started years ago when shooters had two or three misses and still won a USPSA National Championship. The whole "SPEED - POWER - ACCURACY" thing has come down to speed only. POWER is negated by equipment, ACCURACY is overcome by lack of serious penalties, leaving SPEED as the only factor.

[StealthyBlagga]

I would be totally OK with the use of USPSA scoring, though I would prefer that USPSA man-up and produce a dedicated multigun version of EZ Win Score. The advantage of IMGA time plus scoring is the speed with which stages can be run... USPSA is very work-intensive for the ROs.

Edited October 20, 2007 by StealthyBlagga

[BPiatt]

....Cumulative time is a crappy way to score 3-gun, because it places hugely disproportionate weight on the long stages. In the context of a 20 second speed shoot (e.g. a rifle/pistol hoser), the guy who finds a way to shave 5 seconds off the stage is a god. ........

I don't have a problem assigning each stage with set amount of points as each person is competing on the same level. However, this does make speed shoots much more valuable. As far as cumulative time, if all the stages ran approximately the same time to complete, then your argument is negated.

[StealthyBlagga]

I don't have a problem assigning each stage with set amount of points as each person is competing on the same level. However, this does make speed shoots much more valuable. As far as cumulative time, if all the stages ran approximately the same time to complete, then your argument is negated.

A match without hoser stages is, is, is... unAmerican

[Religious Shooter]

I know this is going to stir things up but...... I'll go on record by saying that I am not a fan of USPSA scoring and haven't been for years. My hatred for USPSA scoring started years ago when shooters had two or three misses and still won a USPSA National Championship. The whole "SPEED - POWER - ACCURACY" thing has come down to speed only. POWER is negated by equipment, ACCURACY is overcome by lack of serious penalties, leaving SPEED as the only factor.

If you have a dominant enough shooter I think all the current systems out there will allow a shooter to soak up 2-3 misses (for the entire match or even on stages) with blistering speed.

But you need to take into account that USPSA scoring allows increased valuation of long(er) range steel. As long as the match presenters use the feaure throwing a shot and moving on is a thing of the past.

And since we are talking about modified USPSA scoring... modify the point values of the targets to get to the level of accuracy and speed that you want.

[Joe4d]

I know this is going to stir things up but...... I'll go on record by saying that I am not a fan of USPSA scoring and haven't been for years. My hatred for USPSA scoring started years ago when shooters had two or three misses and still won a USPSA National Championship. The whole "SPEED - POWER - ACCURACY" thing has come down to speed only. POWER is negated by equipment, ACCURACY is overcome by lack of serious penalties, leaving SPEED as the only factor.

AMEN BROTHER !!!!,, I thought I was the only one. been saying this ever since I figured out how USPSA was scored. People on this websight keep saying I am wrong but I can look at match results and over and over I get beat by people who miss a few seconds faster than I am getting A hits. Before I really started trying to speed up I routinely had the highest point total on every stage in a match and generally end up about 20 out of 50 shooters. And I am not taking all day only a few seconds slower. The lack of emphasis on actual hits is the reason I wont be staying with USPSA when I get back to a location where I have a choice.

[Flexmoney]

Mathematically, the difference between USPSA hit factor and time-plus score (like IDPA) is that one is a variable hit factor and one is fixed.

Once you realize that, you can state the two in the same terms. (You can state them both as "hit factor" or state them as each point down being worth x amount of time.)

For me, realizing that was what allowed me to see that it is the preassigned value of the penalties and non-Alpha hits that determined the balance of speed/accuracy.

[Scout454]

We use time plus with no weighting at Black Creek. Two A,B,C hits to score - D's are misses. +5 seconds for a miss, +10 seconds for a no shoot, +10 for an FTE, + 10 for procedurals. Lowest time plus penalties wins, results in order of finish with division noted in results. St. Charles is essentially the same. It works. It's scored on an Excel spreadsheet and it's fast.

[TonyH]

If you have a dominant enough shooter I think all the current systems out there will allow a shooter to soak up 2-3 misses (for the entire match or even on stages) with blistering speed.

You would not have won or be very dominant with 2-3 misses or penalties at SOF.

[Religious Shooter]

Does SOF still exist?

[Cactustactical]

At our local match,we use a spreadsheet which calculates time + penalties and then allocates 100% to the winner of each stage. Each stage is then given equal weight to an eventual match winner. 4 stages, each stage would have 25% weight.

We went this direction several years ago because we were using time + penalites only. The match typically features 1 long range stage ( typically 100 seconds or longer for the fastest) and 3 much shorter stages, so the fast guys on the long stage could tank the shorter ones and still win.

Giving each stage an equal weight seems the fairest way to handle the process. The people who shot the best across the match now win consistently.

[BPiatt]

Does SOF still exist?

No, 25 years were enough for the staff. That's one match I really miss. At one time it was the largest money match in the country. Early 80's winners walked away with 15 or $20,000. That's my luck, once I started winning there the prize money went down to $5000. plus guns. Semi-Surprise stages with No walkthru's, buckshot only, 300 shooters and NEVER a backlog on a stage, really good RO's that did nothing but help the shooters thru the stages... and none of them USPSA shooters or certified RO's....

Anyone care to bring back the match, I recently posted the old rules and still have some of the stage descriptions.

[R112mercer]

Bruce;

The one thing I liked from the scoring at the West Point match was that they changed the penalties to force shooters to make certain shots. A prime example is the long range rifle stage where a miss on the steel resulted in a 15 second penalty (10 for fail to neutralize, 5 for a miss, or something to that effect). That really made hitting that steel important. Otherwise guys would throw one round down range for each piece and breeze through the rest of the stage.

Overall a great match (except for the whole lunch debacle on SAT) and a really good time on a beautiful range at a great time of year. The staff were excellent as well.

Congrats on your win, Bruce!

[bigsaxdog]

excellent thread! uspsa scoring isn't so bad if the courses are designed with some shots that make you slow down, it's just the trend that has only 3 or 4 hard shots in a whole 10 stage match that's bad. in general, uspsa seems to like fast, fairly easy shooting problems that test how fast and smooth you can run the @20+ round gun. don't get me wrong, it's definitely fun, but don't say that the actual shooting is all that difficult. but when all the average shooters get alot of mikes, the indians ain't all that happy, so..... and i'm not saying this in totality either, cause' i've been to some really great, balanced matches. it's just all in the design. read the enos rant at the beginning of this forum on the "Denigration of American Sport", or something like that. i'm personally kinda torqued that they're gonna weight all the stages at "Ft. Benning's School for Boys", (an army friend's quote), at 100 points each, and then let somebody take the mike and time penalty on the long(400yd.) stage. on that long stuff, you shoot till' you get em', or you get the 300, you dig? life's tough, and you should have to shoot them all. there just seems to be alot of questions to the 3-gun scoring that i have seen, and alot of the answers seem to go to the fast, easy shot side. just my 2 cents.......

[benny hill]

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, NOBODY shoots as accurate as you do. I'm a 2d at best shooter, let's don't stack the deck now.

[ap3]

At our local match,we use a spreadsheet which calculates time + penalties and then allocates 100% to the winner of each stage. Each stage is then given equal weight to an eventual match winner. 4 stages, each stage would have 25% weight.

We went this direction several years ago because we were using time + penalites only. The match typically features 1 long range stage ( typically 100 seconds or longer for the fastest) and 3 much shorter stages, so the fast guys on the long stage could tank the shorter ones and still win.

Giving each stage an equal weight seems the fairest way to handle the process. The people who shot the best across the match now win consistently.

+1 on this system. It is fast for scoring, rewards accuracy, and it keeps the match from becoming dominated by rifle. I actually think this is closer to DVC than the current way 3 gun is scored in USPSA. Add to this system double points for long range targets which double the penalities for misses, and I think you have a very good system of scoring.

Edited October 22, 2007 by ap3

[ccur]

+1 on this thread, Bruce

SOF scoring (and probably what Scout 454 does and West Point) rewards the difficulty of the targets PLUS the speed with which you shoot them....we don't reward difficulty much anymore

Cheryl

[cksh8me]

I'm not a fan of USPSA scoring so much so that I passed on the area 1 match and shot the R&R match.

That being said I'm not sure their scoring was any better. I finished better overall than my buddy that went with me but he finished ahead of me in our division. I finished the match 30 seconds faster than he did.

It seems to me that percentage scoring doesn't reward the better score.

[Daniel Horner]

Bruce,

I agree that USPSA scoring is far from ideal. However, as noted above, pure time plus scoring often leaves a 3 gun match to be decided by the long range rifle stage(s); and, IMGA scoring can overemphasize a stage that is a pure speed shoot, and takes most of the acuracy away from the pistol and close range rifle. While stage design can compensate for the problems in any of these systems, it would be virtually impossible to design all stages to be "equal" to each other – especially if you consider more that one person’s opinion!

Rather than going on about the deficiencies of current methods, I would like to put forth an idea for 3 gun scoring that has been discussed and see what everyone thinks.

1. Score stages based on time plus in a Vickers format with 0.5 seconds added for each point dropped (like IDPA).

USPSA targets:

– A & B zone hits = 0 time added

– C zone hits = 0.5 seconds added

– D zone hits = 1.5 seconds added

IDPA targets:

– Standard IDPA scoring

2. Shooters will be awarded points based on their percentage of the stage winner’s time multiplied by the stage points available.

3. Procedural errors = 5 seconds each

4. No shoot hits = 5 seconds each

5. No major/minor scoring

6. Divisions scored separately. (see other thread New Old Scoring! )

7. Penalties for misses on targets set to vary according to distance:

<100 Yards 5 second

>100 Yards 10 Seconds

8. All stages will be assigned a point value based on the number of guns used.

– 1 gun = 100 stage points

– 2 guns = 125 stage points

– 3 guns = 150 stage points

(Granted, this concept can lead to over representation of a stage if, however, it attempts to address other problems for example an 8 second speed shoot equaling a long, complicated multi-gun stage. It also rewards proficiency with more than one gun and the ability to perform transitions.)

To me, the most important element of a match is stage design. Good stages can make any of the scoring methods work, and will make any match more enjoyable to shoot. Hopefully, a better scoring method will make better stages more common.

Well, there it is. May the debate continue!!

Thanks,

Daniel Horner

***Disclaimer***

This is purely my opinion and is the result of a conglomeration of thoughts from a lot of people (mostly Robby Johnson, and my dad).

[Jaxshooter]

The Vickers type scoring gives us old guys a chance to be competitive again. Daniels idea is also a good one. The game has turned to pure speed in most instances. Accuracy should be rewarded and not be secondary to speed.

[Religious Shooter]

Vickers scoring isn't as fun as USPSA scoring.

... 2 cents from a certified Southern Kalifornia hoser.