Yup, sorta my point... if someone thinks shooting speed is how matches are won, they're wrong. they are never going to shoot "faster enough" to make up the points loss. When a person striving to shoot mostly A's then strives to be fast hoping for some As, the speed difference is minimal but the pain in the standings is tremendous. This is true for both idpa and uspsa. You cannot shoot "faster enough" to make up for lost points (tenths of seconds, or multiple seconds for a miss).
Why most people think they are getting beat by speed has nothing to do with shooting. It has to do with moving between positions, getting into/out-of position, reloads, and setting up on shots, etc. People get beat on the stage/match score by someone who flat out smokes them on those aspects yet shoots fewer points and they associate it w/ getting beat by shooting speed (or being penalized for accuracy). It's not an apples to apples comparison, but people want to "fix" it by changing the scoring.
So if shooter A wins w/ a faster time but fewer points, it's not because the scoring "penalized" shooter B for being accurate (or "rewarded shooter A for shooting faster). It's most likely because shooter A does all the OTHER STUFF so much better better. Shooter As score could have been even better by hitting more As!
The scoring isn't broke. The perception is.
If the scoring value changes, it may change the emphasis on accuracy, and slightly change the "test" (which I think defining what the test should be is part of the issue here), but it won't change who the better shooter is or where shooters rank. I've seen that personally switching from minor to major in uspsa.
["Test" is probably a good analogy.... if a written test is 75% multiple choice and 25% essay, the emphasis might change somewhat if that's changed to 25% multiple choice and 75% essay, but the smartest kid will still set the curve.]
It's a balance in DVC. Whether IDPA calls it that or not, that's what they're after as well (well, DC anyway). DVC? DVC?
-rvb
I've taken some of Vickers' classes and they are definitely worth it. I've always come away knowing a lot more than when I went in. Every single time.
I agree the scoring should be one entire second per point.
I also agree with Rhino that some other penalties should be higher. I'd maybe rather see that changed before scoring, because it might bring more attention to accuracy anyway.
I think a hit on a non-threat should take a big enough bite out of the score to make the shooter regret it more than the "Oh well, I'll make it up on the next scenario" we do now.
Am I going to be as careful with a
And here's one that usually gets me in hit water every time I bring it up: I think a Failure To Neutralize should be a zero for the scenario.
Yes, I'm serious. If the "threat" was one that needed shot and neutralized when you started shooting, and you didn't accomplish that, you lost. Failure means failure. If done in a match, it should be something you don't forget easy. Instead, you get five seconds. Oh boy.
Maybe not a zero, but make it heavy. A Failure should be hard to forget, but while I've had plenty, I couldn't tell you when my last FTN was. It was probably at my last match two weeks ago. The penalty is so small I don't remember.
Make a hit on an non-threat about 10-15 seconds, and zero out a scenario for a failure (ok, I'll compromise and make it 30 seconds) and you won't have to change the scoring. Accuracy will come up.
Oh yeah-
And put 10mm back in CDP while messing with the rule book.
I have never seen or heard a real answer, officially or unofficially.I forgot about 10mm. It's kind of silly to put it in ESP. I don't even remember why they did it.
Well first off, you'd have to be shooting IDPA which is a total waste of time.
that was for you Joey.....
I saw Joe wasting his time last year- twice!
I think a hit on a non-threat should take a big enough bite out of the score to make the shooter regret it more than the "Oh well, I'll make it up on the next scenario" we do now.
...
I think a Failure To Neutralize should be a zero for the scenario.
... it should be something you don't forget easy. Instead, you get five seconds.
Heh! Touche, sir.
I enjoy shooting IDPA as long as the stage don't involve too much down on the ground back up down on the ground back up, etc.
And IDPA needs to define "shooting from retention."
WITNESS!
I was and these have become some of my fondest memories, or nightmares I am not sure which. Jim.