New Episode, a long one

I always wondered why wouldn't a USPSA type classification system work in addition to weight classes? You would still be able to be squaded with all different skill levels from Grand Master to D class. There is also no labeling pro or amateur just classification (it's obvious who the pro's are). Maybe just focus on unifying the "national" organizations and recruitment...then go down that rabbit hole???

Archery has always had classes for shooting. Depending on how you do, you move up. I feel a Amateur, Semi Pro, Pro. Dont need to take guns into account. Just make it simple and then those beginning can get a bit of excitement from winning a match. Each year you can get bumped up depending on results. The higher you go the better the pay out for those that do pay out.

lowlight said:

The Everyday Sniper Podcast: Phil and Pete Ask Me to Talk A Lot | The Everyday Sniper

The Everyday Sniper Podcast: Phil and Pete Ask Me to Talk A Lot When I was growing up my Dad used to call me motor mouth, in this episode I demonstrate that ability in living color.Phil Velayo from Modern Day Sniper drops by with Pete from Precision Shooting Solutions to discussion...

theeverydaysniper.podbean.com

Click to expand...

Great insight, Frank! I REALLY like your suggestions, especially the 22LR Jungle Run -- THAT sounds like fun. In regard to your discussion with Phil and Pete on ranking shooters i.e. categories, classes, etc. I'd encourage you guys to look into the ELO system for scoring competitors based on their ability. It's been used for decades, if not a century, in Chess and allows players to instantly (real-time) compare their capabilities to everyone around them, including the best (Grandmasters) and allows Match Directors the ability to award prizes to certain brackets and tailor the competition to the participants -- it works great and it's fun to chase the next benchmark e.g. in chess you have the following ratings based on the players ELO Score, as follows:

Grandmaster (GM): 2500+ (over three tournaments against the strongest competition -- events have ratings as well and must qualify as being worthy based on the level of GM competition)
International Master (IM): 2400-2499 (over three tournaments against strong competition -- events have ratings as well and must qualify as being worthy based on the level of IM competition)
THESE TOP-CLASS TITLES (ABOVE) ARE PRETTY DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE WHICH MAKES THESE PLAYERS TRULY BEST-OF-THE-BEST!!!
Master: 2300-2399
Candidate Master: 2200-2299
Expert: 2000–2199
Class A: 1800–1999
Class B: 1600–1799
Class C: 1400–1599
Class D: 1200–1399
Class E: 1000–1199

The Chess World Champion, Magnus Carlsen, is rated like 2846 and is a MONSTER of a player and has dominated the game for more than a decade (he's called the Mozart of chess), but his rating is based on his results just like everyone else's which makes it fun.

Like PRS, chess has different classes of competition based on the time rather than the level of the equipment i.e. Classical (2-hour/player), Rapid (25-min/player), Blitz (5-min/player), Bullet (1-min/player). The same could be done with different classes of equipment I suppose,... Can you see Jake V running a Tikka T3 to get his factory rating up? That would be kinda cool!

I'm not clear on all the math and procedures, but it's all handled by software now (see HERE for the latest up-to-the-minute ratings on the worlds best chess players) seems that new folks receive a "Temporary Score" of around 1400 and based on their subsequent competition game scores it goes up/down accordingly,... I don't know if it would work, but I suspect it would and everyone could track their "Rating" and see how they compare,... just a thought.

Ry

As a newer shooter, I think classifications of shooters can be a good thing. I would like to know I am a C shooter and getting better in my talent group. I can work on winning the C category and moving up to being a B shooter.

You talked about focusing on the 25th to 75th place shooters. Classifying creates more motivation for them to get to the next level. Otherwise we are only looking at the top level and dreaming if being there. This makes it small steps rather than impossible mountains. Look at it like Martial arts and the belt colors. As we build more skills and get better we get classified as better. Is it a bit of a participation trophy? sure, but even this website has an "Achievements" system.
Hockey - baseball - golf all have lower leagues (classifications) that help the athlete grow.

At the north central Boarder wars Championship match this year we were squad-ed on our season scores. (classified) It was more fun (and competitive) to see who in my squad I beat and who in the squad in front of me I beat or who in the squad behind me beat me. This was a real motivation that day, having classes will do for very match.

Yes - basing the prize tables on this classification is an excellent opportunity for those supporting the sport to say where they want thier product to go to. "Here is a scope, I want it on the B table" or go to the winner of the B shooters. The fellas in A can compete for money. Or letting the top 5 walk the table then the division leaders then the rest of the field. The prize table is the least of my worries, but doing this starts to take care of the 25th to 75th place shooters.

There are a lot of positives that can come from Classifications here are a couple.

• Evaluating your gear can go with this. If I am shooting a factory rifle and never getting out of B group and into A group I can think about upgrading gear. Looking at the A group gear will give me a direction to go.
• Evaluate your training or practice - I didn't practice this year so I dropped a class... Damn I better go Practice. Or I moved up by doing practice.
• Let the Lowest level shooter have help on the clock. (The mantra is grow the sport right?) If we help the lowest level shooters they will come back and get better. It creates the community.
• Squading - require one shooter from each level in each squad. Now a C level shooter can squad with the "super squad" of A shooters and gets to learn by watching them.

Sorry if you are old and slowing down and don't want to see your classification droping. (another evaluation you can make- Age) And if you don't like the classification because you are only self evaluating based on the match winner then ignore them and do your thing. But this could help grow the sport too. Entry level shooters will be competing against other entry level shooters with a visible number.

Agreed. It needs to be easy. Pete has a pretty good model for this. I listened to him on the Modern Day Sniper podcast with Phil where they broke the classes down and how it worked, what forced you to move up and what dropped you back. its simple, clean and easy. It based on the % of the shooter like you said above.

www.wycoprl.com

We are doing almost the same thing that Pete is doing in southern Wyoming. It’s gonna be awesome.

Here is the WYCOPL does thier classes

Yep at the Uspsa area matches they have prize tables for each classification per division, but I think there has to be a minimum amount of shooters per class per division. I also think it wouldn’t be hard to have a classification stage per match. That’s what they do in Uspsa. That does take a bit of planning though for our sport since you’d have to make strict standards for the different classification stages that everyone adheres to.

So the classes that are spelled out in the WYCO screenshot above are identical for WPR. They weren't arbitrarily selected numbers. We all worked together and looked at actual results from a sampling of scores from multiple venues throughout the regions in previous years, with the goal of separating the roster at each event into 1/3's for a 3 class system. We had initially considered some your exact figures Frank, however the data said otherwise, so those were the numbers selected. Immaterial, as the endgame here is to make this appealing and sustainable to a larger demographic of competitors.

PJK said:

So the classes that are spelled out in the WYCO screenshot above are identical for WPR. They weren't arbitrarily selected numbers. We all worked together and looked at actual results from a sampling of scores from multiple venues throughout the regions in previous years, with the goal of separating the roster at each event into 1/3's for a 3 class system. We had initially considered some your exact figures Frank, however the data said otherwise, so those were the numbers selected. Immaterial, as the endgame here is to make this appealing and sustainable to a larger demographic of competitors.

Click to expand...

Do you have your rules posted any where?

In the Modern day sniper podcast you talked about 2 matches to move up in class and 3 or 4 to move down in class - is this still the idea?

I do like the 4th lower category to get these shooter more help, Like extra time or help on the clock. It also as more steps to achive. But I have not seen the numbers and I am glad you are looking at the data to make your decisions.

Jack Master said:

Do you have your rules posted any where?

In the Modern day sniper podcast you talked about 2 matches to move up in class and 3 or 4 to move down in class - is this still the idea?

I do like the 4th lower category to get these shooter more help, Like extra time or help on the clock. It also as more steps to achive. But I have not seen the numbers and I am glad you are looking at the data to make your decisions.

Click to expand...

Here's Western Precision Rifle's website. The rules read identical to the WYCO boys as we worked together to establish them. We considered the 4th class but the numbers in the lower percentages didn't warrant it and we really wanted not to get overly complicated. Ideally we're trying to build the community aspect and not the politics so simple seemed appropriate. Classing down was deemed a very low priority as it encourages sandbagging and we elected to deal with it on a case by case basis. Making a match achievable and rewarding to all levels of competitors ultimately falls at the feet of each MD. He or she must think smart and build a COF that is rewarding to the entire shooter body. MD's really do need to pay attention to what works and doesn't for the competitors that show up every month and "give the people what they want". As Frank has said, there's never any good reason not to change things midstream, and with what we learn something from this first year, it will definitely happen.

Matches | Western Precision Rifle

Seperate from the classification thing...could hit factor scoring work? Total points/time? Or would it be too much of a time suck?? Maybe list anything past 3 minutes as timing out (or whatever is reasonable for that particular course of fire)...

lowlight said:

I am warming up to it for sure,

The chess thing got the braining working as Chess should

I think standardizing this and making it easy to understand and find is the key,

Simple is better, that has been my experience, I tried looking at handicapping and balancing scores based on location and COF, but this is easy

you can get as fine or course as needed, less people, you have a less breakdown, more people, you can divide it up further

The prize table aspect is easy, and might I say genius, solves a lot of past issues and maintains transparency

Click to expand...

Glad you like it! I knew you would. While the ELO System works great in ranking competitors in head-to-head competition, your instincts on looking at the % of possible points and scoring on a bell-curve based on the winner's score seems reasonable. It's only weakness is it only applies to those competitors contained in bitty fishbowls geographically and doesn't allow for comparison with other shooters outside of an area, unless a known shooter takes part in an event with these other shooters which offers very limited means of comparison... You know there are groups of casual "A" shooters in Utah (no offense Utah), who would get chewed-up by another groups "B" shooters in Texas,... know what I mean? Shooter Rating, like in chess, that follows the individual as they compete. It would solve the Up/Down Bracket issue i.e. you have a great summer of shooting and your Shooter Rating reaches 2150 which allows you to get to pick from the top prize tables (2100+), etc. You have a shitty match or two after that, TOO BAD, your real-time Shooter Rating drops you back to 2074... not enough to take the top prizes or bragging rights. That's why I think there has to be a score that follows the shooter and means something from location to location. There's got to be some Doctorial student in game-theory somewhere who likes shooting who could make sense of something like this. Come on, Frank! You know people, don't you!

Ry

blurry6 said:

Glad you like it! I knew you would. While the ELO System works great in ranking competitors in head-to-head competition, your instincts on looking at the % of possible points and scoring on a bell-curve based on the winner's score seems reasonable. It's only weakness is it only applies to those competitors contained in bitty fishbowls geographically and doesn't allow for comparison with other shooters outside of an area, unless a known shooter takes part in an event with these other shooters which offers very limited means of comparison... You know there are groups of casual "A" shooters in Utah (no offense Utah), who would get chewed-up by another groups "B" shooters in Texas,... know what I mean? Shooter Rating, like in chess, that follows the individual as they compete. It would solve the Up/Down Bracket issue i.e. you have a great summer of shooting and your Shooter Rating reaches 2150 which allows you to get to pick from the top prize tables (2100+), etc. You have a shitty match or two after that, TOO BAD, your real-time Shooter Rating drops you back to 2074... not enough to take the top prizes or bragging rights. That's why I think there has to be a score that follows the shooter and means something from location to location. There's got to be some Doctorial student in game-theory somewhere who likes shooting who could make sense of something like this. Come on, Frank! You know people, don't you!

Ry

Click to expand...

I'm glad you brought up the potential comparison challenges between the smaller geographical regions. It's a very valid point and one we all talked about at length. So with the thought that at some point inter-regional competition would occur, we tried to standardize the percentage breaks between the small clubs that have been working together. In this way it should leave room for that to happen down the road (maybe later this year) It also allowed shooters to compare each other to other "B" class shooters in other "regions". Now you brought up the issue of the playing field being somewhat unlevel and that's very valid. Also something we discussed at length.... Here's my thought on that... Self resolving situation. If a "region" notoriously puts on what's come to be called "meatball" matches where the hit percentage is artificially high, and creates a group of "A" class shooters that are truly only "B" class shooters when measured against shooters from another region, well that's going to become blatantly apparent when inter-regional competitions occur and they will inevitably get spanked and go home with their tails between their legs. Here's where it gets resolved.... If the MD's are paying attention, AND THEY SHOULD BE, they are going to see that they aren't doing their shooters any favors with a meatball match and will need to increase the difficulty to bring their shooters up to a competitive level. Also, shooters are going to want to attend events that showcase their ability. An easy A without the work required to attain it will really hurt if you get your ass handed to you every time you make the "Finale". We don't necessarily need to require anything because the attendance will dictate what works. If as an MD, you put on a subpar event, it won't take very long for shooters to go elsewhere for their fun and it'll die on it's own. It fosters better shooters, but also better matches.

PJK said:

I'm glad you brought up the potential comparison challenges between the smaller geographical regions. It's a very valid point and one we all talked about at length. So with the thought that at some point inter-regional competition would occur, we tried to standardize the percentage breaks between the small clubs that have been working together. In this way it should leave room for that to happen down the road (maybe later this year) It also allowed shooters to compare each other to other "B" class shooters in other "regions". Now you brought up the issue of the playing field being somewhat unlevel and that's very valid. Also something we discussed at length.... Here's my thought on that... Self resolving situation. If a "region" notoriously puts on what's come to be called "meatball" matches where the hit percentage is artificially high, and creates a group of "A" class shooters that are truly only "B" class shooters when measured against shooters from another region, well that's going to become blatantly apparent when inter-regional competitions occur and they will inevitably get spanked and go home with their tails between their legs. Here's where it gets resolved.... If the MD's are paying attention, AND THEY SHOULD BE, they are going to see that they aren't doing their shooters any favors with a meatball match and will need to increase the difficulty to bring their shooters up to a competitive level. Also, shooters are going to want to attend events that showcase their ability. An easy A without the work required to attain it will really hurt if you get your ass handed to you every time you make the "Finale". We don't necessarily need to require anything because the attendance will dictate what works. If as an MD, you put on a subpar event, it won't take very long for shooters to go elsewhere for their fun and it'll die on it's own. It fosters better shooters, but also better matches.

Click to expand...

That sounds like a great solution and it sounds like you guys have definitely burned the midnight oil on it. I don't know, but I'm sure you MD's have talked about standardizing stuff across the contests i.e. 3/4-MOA targets for anything 300-yards and in, 1-MOA 400-600-yards, 1.5-MOA 700-900,... etc. In any case, I think it's a viable solution provided the MD's are on top of maintaining a certain level-of-difficulty. Nice work!

Ry

Tagged in to see the letter/response.

Oh My Wow, what an epic rant. I loved and hated every minute of it. Frank really shows how out of touch he is with the average shooter or person who may be interested in shooting. He's like the Kim Kardashian of sniping. "Oh, if I show up at a match new shooters must compare themselves to me so they can see how bad they suck!". That's a very good way to shut down people's interest.

An easy way to make shooting competitions fun and promote people coming back is offering free heroin after the match. Bet you people would be hooked to the sport after that. /jk

Now to my epic rant: The reason Phil and Pete kept returning to the idea of classifications is because skill based matchmaking (SBMM) is a fun way to compete with people at your level. Competing with people at your level to become better is a lot more attainable and enjoyable than trying to compete directly with the top 10 shooters on the planet. SBMM prevents my ass from being smashed by you (Frank) and disheartening me from trying to improve my skills. And you know what, sometimes I want to compete without having to strive to be the best. Lower bracket competitions can be just as fun and engaging as the top 10 competing against each other. Most people understand they won't ever have the resources to be the best but structuring a system to allow people from lower brackets to compete and have fun can still exist

So let's get away with the current definitions of divisions, classifications, ranking, etc.

Here's my idea. Much like the ELO method, you compare where you placed in relation to the overall score of the match or top scorer. You find a distribution of the shooters to separate the shooters into different brackets, like mentioned above. We can use statistical models and algorithms to do this quickly and for EVERY MATCH, independent of other matches. Once you have the shooters of that particular match in those prescribed buckets, you then join bucket 1 with the shooters of bucket 2 from a separate match. Now you can form both overall rankings from first place to nth place while also having people compete against each other at their own level.

Now here is where I get crazy. Modeling after video games, it is fun and addicting when you first start a game to level up quickly. But then as you get more experienced, the leveling up gets harder. We should apply this strategy to our brackets. Create 25(!) brackets where the bottom 15 brackets can be easily waded through, the middle 5 brackets are harder to wade through and the top 5 brackets are for the professionals. The bottom 15 brackets are one way, that means you can only be promoted. The top 10 brackets allow for relegation which means you can be demoted. This way new shooters are quickly incentivized as they improve. Again, we can perform this distribution using statistical models. We can base the bottom 15 brackets on overall points accumulation and then the top brackets on a combination of skill items (stages cleared, fastest times, overall hit percentage, overall ranking in the match, etc). This way we can incentivize new shooters to keep coming to matches (via bucket promotions) and after some time they can start applying themselves to the top ten buckets.

The main issues I see when comparing any type of shooting competitions with other sports is around standardization. In football, chess, swimming, Nascar, etc everyone is playing the exact same game which have strict definitions. In shooting sports those definitions change wildly based on the course of fire. There needs to be some standardization of courses of fire to allow for easier comparisons of shooters between matches. Every match doesn't need the exact same course of fire but they individual courses should be comparable. For example: this weekend every match needs to have 3 easy 5 medium and 2 hard individual courses of fire and you can choose them from this set of courses.

Oh, another way to make shooting fun is to offer up achievements. You get an achievement if you clear a stage, or you clear a stage certain under a prescribed time limit, or you hit a target at X distance, you shoot X matches a season, you traveled X distance for matches, you collect badges for different matches you attend, you shoot different categories of rifles in a match (rimfire, .223, cheapo, expensive, stock, custom), you expend a certain amount of ammo, track how many MILs of elevation they accumulated over each match and make milestones around that, achievement for shooting a match in X mph wind, shooting a match in X temperature (hot or cold), humidity, etc. You can make shooting into a collectables thing pretty easily with an app and coordination of match directors.

Final notes for an app:

• Use distribution/percentage based ranking that can be match independent and support skill based match making (regardless of equipment, who the fuck cares about equipment)
• Come up with a course of fire standard that is shared and universal
• Allow for gamification of the sport outside of straight competition
• The only divisions I'd have would be: Junior and Everyone else (do we really need a separate division for women? this isn't a physical sport...yet)

Side note: I don't give a fuck about incentivizing shooters to show up with prizes. So there needs to be a move away from or separately distribute those items that is not incorporated with my system. Just do a fucking raffle for everything.

God I've got so much homework to do but procrastinating is awesome...

Standardizing matches

• Like Football and futbol, we are going to ignore the weather. Because of how we are using a statistical distribution for ranking, the top 10% of shooters who shoot in windy, closed conditions can be directly compared to the top 10% of who shoot in perfect conditions, even if overall points scored is vastly different
• Create an ass ton of different stages. We can add to or remove stages as seasons go on. Variations of stages must be codified in a meaningful way.
• Compartmentalize the stages into 3 bucket: easy, medium, and hard.
• Each week's matches get the same amount of easy, medium, and hard stages for people to shoot on. The individual stages can vary.

Potential Data to collect

• The particular stage being shot
  • Number of targets
  • Distances being shot
  • Amount of movement required
  • Gear restrictions
  • Positions used
  • Other restrictions (dial/no dial, mandatory mag change, etc)
• Hit percentage of stage
• Points earned on stage
• Time to complete stage (if stage is cleared)
• Weather metrics at that stage (wind, precipitation, humidity, temperature, elevation)

Like mentioned before, the bottom X ranks can be waded through via points accumulation. The other metrics may be used for tie breakers for the top Y ranks. Officials would need to record hit percentage, points earned, and time of the stage but all other information can be user supplied.

Footin mouth here because I haven't listened to the podcast yet but from what I know so far about these kinds of matches is they are all pretty much what a uspsa shooter would call outlaw matches. There seems to be no standardized set of rules and no organization running anything. Therefore you cannot classify anyone. If Joe blo shoots one match and wins because he just shoots there all the time and it was a easy ass match and there was no real competition there you can't concider him a grand Master because when he goes to a different more difficult match he will be in last place.

If you want classes you need standard courses of fire aka Classifiers like uspsa has and 3 gun Nation had. How the hell can you compare yourself to somone else if you've never shot the same exact COF?

We need to use a Chuck-E-Cheese ticket system to get prizes at the match.

I think what Phil and Pete are hitting on is, like they said, building of a community instead of a competition. I see a lot of discussion here about how to standardize courses of fire, create level playing fields across regions, etc and to me those efforts are just slipping back too far into that competition realm. I say don't worry about how another region's matches or competitors might stack up against yours. If you're really that curious, go shoot in another region. Grow the sport in your area, get more local venues, build that community atmosphere with shooters who live within just a few hours of you, but for now keep it regionally focused. There's still the competition aspect for those motivated individuals to improve and get to the top of their regions. And obviously for those top tier individuals who wish to test themselves on the national stage there are established series for them to do so.

For every one of those top tier shooters though, there's likely hundreds of recreational, ameteur, weekend shooters, whatever you want to call them, who just want a venue and opportunity to go enjoy the sport without the heavy travel & financial investment that some series require. I don't see this sort of regionally focused series as a replacement for the PRS/NRL/etc but instead a parallel option that's more easily accessible for the average shooter. It may organically grow to that level someday, but we gotta start somewhere

lowlight said:

Honestly

I just read Shannon's reply to the International Guys who want to do the World Challenges, it's fucked, this has to stay regional

Shannon has ZERO interest in working with anyone, he claims the PRS is the biggest and the best and those competing against it are foolishly hurting the sport, as well as his business.

he is holding people to agreements where they can't work with others, forfeit status, yada, yada,

I think the only answer is this, do your own thing regionally DO NOT SUPPORT THE PRS once this letter becomes public people will see what a dick he has become.

The answer is build your region, your rules, align with like minded folks in other regions to share and go head to head, but I would not support the PRS. They want it all of themselves, refuse to play with others unless they make the rules, or better you are absorbed into them, so it's never gonna work

Work the Regions, the National level is dead...

Click to expand...

If you're in this solely to make money, you take stances like this and the legacy you leave behind will reflect it.

Pretty soon this is all this "national level" drama is gonna get classified on www.shitnobodycares.com

The sport grows from the regional/club level participants. They're the ones who support sponsors, they're the ones who make the micro-economics of this particular shooting sport function.

As an example: club level match in Prosser, WA at the Lead Farm. Those dudes ran a fantastic show. 10 stages, 8x shooters per squad, self/squad RO. Start time of 0930, end time 1530-ish. $50 entry fee. Bad-ass hot lunch, trophies for #1-#3. No squad pile-ups, event ran smooth as hell, and I saw ZERO difference in venue space available, stage difficulty (time/target size/range/props) compared to a "national level" event with the exception of squad size.

The people that contribute the most to the sport give zero shits about a prize table, but I can guarantee that a more structured, and shooter friendly, classification system would enhance club/regional level support even more so.

This discussion is why I don't bother with PRS as sport. There's no consensus and it inevitably ends up as a purse swinging contest. There are a few well put together, cohesive, regional groups but most are a battle of the personalities at best.

In the summer I shoot anywhere between three and five USPSA matches per months. I can show up at any range, already know the rules, jump on a squad, and compete. There's no BS for the most part, there is a rulebook that everyone follows, even the most basic level 1 matches. I've shot with most of the top shooters at one point or another (I'm not a top shooter) and they abide by the same rules I do. I know where they stand as shooters because I can look up their public classification record if I want. They can do the same for me.

The classification system exists for a few reasons but primarily transparency within the organization. So long as PRS/NRL doesn't have standardization and transparency there will always be drama and power struggles. USPSA surely isn't perfect but they're 30 years ahead of PRS and have already learned the lessons PRS can't seem to wrap it's collective head around.

Cascade Hemi said:

This discussion is why I don't bother with PRS as sport. There's no consensus and it inevitably ends up as a purse swinging contest. There are a few well put together, cohesive, regional groups but most are a battle of the personalities at best.

In the summer I shoot anywhere between three and five USPSA matches per months. I can show up at any range, already know the rules, jump on a squad, and compete. There's no BS for the most part, there is a rulebook that everyone follows, even the most basic level 1 matches. I've shot with most of the top shooters at one point or another (I'm not a top shooter) and they abide by the same rules I do. I know where they stand as shooters because I can look up their public classification record if I want. They can do the same for me.

The classification system exists for a few reasons but primarily transparency within the organization. So long as PRS/NRL doesn't have standardization and transparency there will always be drama and power struggles. USPSA surely isn't perfect but they're 30 years ahead of PRS and have already learned the lessons PRS can't seem to wrap it's collective head around.

Click to expand...

You absolutely won this thread. Now if we can just get these people to understand how we got classified in uspsa and the reason for even being classified we'd be in good shape.

Frank, I listened to the podcast. I don't understand what you were saying about getting percentages in the final scores for overall, ladies, Jr's, cops... Practiscore already does all that, you can filter any category you want.

Also, NO! cops don't get to shoot for free. They have jobs and they can pay like everyone else. No one I know likes it when there's more than one of those guys in our squad because their egos are usually terrible and it disrupts the day.

louu said:

Also, NO! cops don't get to shoot for free. They have jobs and they can pay like everyone else. No one I know likes it when there's more than one of those guys in our squad because their egos are usually terrible and it disrupts the day.

Click to expand...

Hm. I never knew that all cops are dicks.

The cops I know are all super good dudes and I would rather shoot with them than about anyone else I know.

I have looked into classification calculations across multiple competitive events. The biggest challenge would be creating a way to calculate a COF difficulty and then based on percentage of hits calculate a points system. The issue with using any one match is there is no standard. One match has huge targets easy positions and time. The next has small targets unstable positions and shorter time.

A COF difficulty calculation is needed to do this.

While not perfect yet I do have a very close way to do this but testing it out further across multiple matches.

In my opinion “Standard” stages do not do this appropriately.