Modify The Scoring System?

[Dan Bone]

I’d like to bring up the subject of our scoring system. In its present form it promotes high speed and tolerates sloppy shooting. Not only is this discouraging for the older, less physically capable and new/novice shooter. It’s just plain wrong. Our scoring system rewards the young, quick footed hosers and

tolerates (if not encourages) this style of shooting. The experienced competitors already know that how accurate you need to be is directly proportional to the hit factor of the specific stage. In a "speed" course C's and D's (and even Mikes) aren't that big of a deal provided you're fast enough to compensate. With a little luck you might even get lucky and hit the A while "hosing" it off and post a nice classifier score. An easy fix is to change to the same point value as we use for Production. For a nice example, take your last match data on EZscore. Re-enter the program and change every shooters profile to reflect that they were shooting minor. Now when you re-calculate the scores those with well rounded skills (fast and accurate) still break out in the top finishes that they deserve. But the rest of the shooting results change dramatically. The hosers slide back a bit and those with the higher point values suddenly become competitive with the “spray and pray” shooters. This system rewards an “A” zone shot and penalizes anything less. The game still stays the same, the competitors and shooters still get the same enjoyment out of the sport. But now we're rewarding talent vice luck.

[Flexmoney]

I won't disagree, but don't forget the POWER part of DVC.

Sounds like you might benefit by appoint one of your setup crew as "Mr. Hardcover". Send him out with a can of black spray paint and some black tape. That ought to make a difference.

[rhino]

I used to think the scoring system should be changed to reflect more emphasis on accuracy too. Since then, I've changed my mind. Now I think it's more of a matter of course design than it is the scoring system.

If you want accuracy to be more important, volunteer to design some stages that require more accuracy! Hard cover, partial targets, no shoots, moving targets, etc. can make all the difference in the world.

I do think that no-shoot hits should be a bigger penalty, though.

[Flexmoney]

I just got an email asking what DVC stood for...thought I would post here (this is from the front of the rule book).

D.V.C.

...stands for the three legs of the practical shooting triangle.

D = Diligentia = Accuracy

V = Vis = Power

C = Celeritas = Speed

The shooter is challenged to find a "winning" combination of these factors.

Oh..Rhino makes some very good points!!!

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

I've got a novel idea. Rather than change the scoring system, why not just make the targets smaller? This would be the easiest way to reduce speed and improve accuracy. For example, we could cut off the B zone, and make the main section smaller. This would make full and partial targets tougher.

I don't know what we could call it though. Hmmmm. It's a Classic conundrum.

[vluc]

That's a good one, Vince!

Some of our clubs have gone to using such an approach on some stages. hehe, get some grumbling and kvetching on those!

Personally I like them as opposed to changing the scoring, though if we did I would plug (as I've doen before) for B=4 on minor.

Going to go back to some designs and replace things with hard cover and partials....

[Dan Bone]

I disagree… I do design and set up stages as I’m the founder and president of (2) USPSA clubs in NC (NC 21 & NC 23). The crew and I are already notorious for setting up elaborate and entertaining stages. Hard cover and no-shoots are never at a shortage there. But I am still amazed as we’re scoring a run and repeatedly calling out “Alfa - Charlie” or “Charlie - Charlie” and the competitors are satisfied (if not pleased) with that. In turn, the new/novice shooters see that and follow suit by hauling ass through the stages spraying away and think that’s what it’s all about.

I try to teach the shooters that the objective is to regulate your speed so as to go as fast as possible and STILL collect 90% (minimum) of the available score. We all know that this is the only way to truly shoot and win at the upper levels (A/M/GM). But at the lower levels, the balance falls off significantly and hosing is the ticket to win. This is where we lose the older, less fit and shooters from other disciplines (who see that we’re not displaying a shooting skill but just running wild throwing bullets around).

Agreed DVC or the balance of power accuracy and speed is what it’s “supposed” to be about but I feel our scoring system is OUT of balance in favor of spray and pray. Maybe we should change from DVC to S&P.

[Bucky]

If you want a more accuracy intensive sport, there is alway IDPA. Being able to blaze through a course is part of the attraction to the sport. However, I do disagree that Ds and Misses don't matter much. If you are shooting against people of your own ability.. they very much do matter.

[Steve Anderson]

Bucky stole my point. Against someone of your ability, points are ALL that matters.

If Travis and Blake both shoot the stage in 2.0X seconds, points will likely carry the stage.

If you are being beaten by shooters who are sloppier than you, they are appreciably faster at solving the stage and are thus rewarded. AND, much of this speed comes from HOW they move, not HOW FAST they move.

I tend to agree about the miss penalty, it could/should be higher.

This would teach advanced shot calling very quickly.

At my last major match in Indy, I had a nice little rally at the end and smoked the last two stages pretty niceley. the RO's all congratted me for stage wins and I was feeling pretty good about it.

Turns out I was second and third on those because of: POINTS. One had close targets in the dark and I blasted at shapes. (here little DDDDoggie) Another had a close one on the gound that got a cursory squirt (nice little DDDDoggie) I got mostly A's and a c or three on the targets I respected. The hoser targets got dissed in my focus and I paid the price. Another M shooter beat me.

First thing Flex said: You gotta get more points.

SA

(raw skill needs some seasoning to be tasty)

[SmittyFL]

Speed is what this game is all about. Any of us here could shoot all A's on every stage if our minds didn't factor in the speed. We know that taking the time to shoot all A's isn't worth it with the scoring system....that's the fun/challenging part.

I understand Dan's point. I think most shooters realize eventually that they need more than speed. I know for me, my speed allowed me to go from D to probably middle A class. Then you realize that speed can't do it all for you and eventually you have to start hitting what you are aiming at.

There are other games out there that focus on accuracy, IDPA and Bullseye type stuff, I'm not saying go shoot those, I don't want to lose any shooters. I'm just trying to help you understand my point. The scoring system, althought confusing to new folks is a good way of combining all aspects of "practical shooting"

DVC

[rhino]

One had close targets in the dark and I blasted at shapes.

I want it known for the record that I got all A's on those same targets!

[Skywalker]

I am still amazed as we’re scoring a run and repeatedly calling out “Alfa - Charlie” or “Charlie - Charlie” and the competitors are satisfied (if not pleased) with that.

...

I try to teach the shooters that the objective is to regulate your speed so as to go as fast as possible and STILL collect 90% (minimum) of the available score.

Dan,

don't want to be hard on this, but if you do the math, A-C on a single target is already 90% of available score for that target, and you should be perfectly satisfied with this.

Although I can agree that C-C on the same target means you traded too much accuracy for speed, I am quite partial to the idea that actual scoring method rewards "accurately" the balance among Diligentia, Vis and Celeritas.

[Detlef]

you could also try to shoot Production Division (minor). The "C" penalty on a typical course of fire (say, 5 HF) is nearly as big as in IDPA (0.4 sec vs. 0.5 sec added). IDPA and IPSC minor teach you accuracy *really* quickly!

--Detlef

[Loves2Shoot]

Hi guys,

I've got a novel idea. Rather than change the scoring system, why not just make the targets smaller? This would be the easiest way to reduce speed and improve accuracy. For example, we could cut off the B zone, and make the main section smaller. This would make full and partial targets tougher.

I don't know what we could call it though. Hmmmm. It's a Classic conundrum.

Why? Just use hardcover and no-shoots. Just say no to ameobas!

[Ron Ankeny]

I too really think the in your face hoser stuff has gone way to far. I am all for increasing the difficulty levels of the shot, to a point. The answer is indeed to be found in course design.

Besides, when you get right down to it, the majority want high round count hoser stuff or the trend would have reversed. I still like USPSA, but when I want to level the playing field (old and fat vs. young and quick) I shoot steel.

[grassy knoll]

it's been said and i agree it's stage design and use of hard cover and no shoots 50% of the A zone can slow down the hosers

[Dan Bone]

Don't get me wrong. I can hose with the best of them and I thoroughly enjoy it. Alot of my concern is for the sport and the growth of the sport. This question all stemmed from my trying to understand why we're losing the new/novice and elderly shooters. I just believe that the scoring system has plenty to do with it. Against another equally ranked shooters we all know what it takes to win. What I'm looking at is how to level the playing field for those who aren't the HARD CORE USPSA junky that we are (yet).

[John Dunn]

I'll weigh in with those who say let course design sort out the accuracy, and leave the scoring system alone. Having a stage of classic targets would be cool. Never seen one at a match, though.

[ErikW]

Yeah, we could use Classic targets, with hardcover and no-shoots, and lower values for the scoring zones...

...and it would be all for naught when the hoser course designers just move the targets in from 5 yards to 2 yards.

[TDean]

First of all, why is HOSING a dirty word?

If someone wants to gamble and rush through a stage without being very accuracy-focused, let em! The penalties for 3 Delta's and a Mike are pretty severe already.

It seems that there's a crowd of folks who HATE the fast shooters. Why?

DVC !!

[Loves2Shoot]

First of all, why is HOSING a dirty word?

If someone wants to gamble and rush through a stage without being very accuracy-focused, let em! The penalties for 3 Delta's and a Mike are pretty severe already.

It seems that there's a crowd of folks who HATE the fast shooters. Why?

DVC !!

ENVY

[Ron Ankeny]

I admire fast shooters, but I hate course design that serves no useful purpose other than to drive up the round count. I see all kinds of arrays of type one focus stuff in the form of targets fanned out likeplaying cards, or one right side up next to one upside down, next to one right side up, and so on. What kind of challenge is all of the in your face stuff? It's little more than ballistic diarrhea. It seems like we have a lot of course designers who are trying to cram as many rounds as possible into the smallest space possible.

FWIW, I have read some very critical remarks about the current state of course design from world class GM shooters so I don't think envy has a thing to do with it.

John:

I set up the classifier and a 20-28 round field course every month. For the past 4 months I have used classic targets on every field course that I set up. We won't be ordering any more classics because the guys don't like them.

[shred]

People aren't looking at the math.

The slower you shoot any given stage, the more you need to get all the points.

If the GM's run a 100 point stage in 10 seconds, that's a 10 HF. Each C hit costs them 0.1 second. If the C-class shooters take 20 seconds to run the same stage, each point is worth twice as much time. Each C hit costs them .2 seconds and D's cost 0.6 seconds each.

My GF just started shooting IPSC and is having a great time beating up on people much faster than she is just by hitting many more points. Unfortunately she doesn't get to see that until the results are posted and half the shooters have gone home. That is where the perception problem is. We have no quick way to compute and compare hit factors.

Speed gets all the attention because everybody asks "what was your time on that?" and it's a super easy comparison. Eventually (somewhere around A-class), you start adding "and how were your points?" because you figure it out.

Maybe Palm scoring can help.. if they print the HF in big numbers at the end of the stage, people might start comparing that instead.

But, no matter what point value each target has, people will still ask "What was your time on that?" Until that problem gets solved (and don't go saying Time Plus scoring or I'll hit somebody), it'll always be that way. Production shooters still get asked "what was your time on that?"

[Fossil]

Although I love shooting the “Hoser” stages, I do agree that it is getting out of hand.

The answer is not changing the scoring system or target shape, but plain and simple course design.

It used to be that every major match had some kind of standard exercises from seven to fifty yards, including weak/strong hand shooting.

For example, the last Area 2 championship match, out of the 10 stages, stage 1,4, and to a lesser degree stage 8 were reasonable stages, not great but reasonable, all remaining stages were “rabbit” stages, run like a rabbit, targets at bayonet distance and wide open, great fun, but silly.

The major match organizers need to take most of the blame for this trend, they go for quantity ($$$), it is very hard, nearly impossible to have elaborate stages for a match with 400+ competitors, crammed in a 2-1/2day time frame.

If the majority of the shooters are willing to pay $175.00 and up to shoot that kind of matches, this trend will not change, and the quality of the matches will deteriorate even more.

[Bob Hostetter]

USPSA competitors are the ones who decide what kind of course designs are offered at matches. If they continue to support a club or match that presents all hoser type stages then all they will get in hoser type stages.

Match director's must present the type of stages the shooters want or they will quickly be out of business. If you don't like the stages don't spend your money at that venue.