PRS Talk PRS Casual Rules...

[joelinux]

Someone who hits the target earlier has to overcome fewer misses to get their hit percentage up, and all of their shots on that target end up counting for slightly more as a result. So, if someone hits a 1000yd/1sqmoa gong on their third shot and then rings home another 7 times, they get 100^1.25/1*0.8*sqrt(8)=716 target points. The person who takes 9 shots to walk it in has to hit the next 14 consecutive shots to beat that score - which is achievable, but not trivial.

Meanwhile, the “shoot twice and get lucky” shooter only gets a target score of 158 (hit percentage multiplier 0.5, sqrt(hits)=1), which the person who had a bad day beats on their second hit, shot number 4, because of the sqrt(hits) multiplier (1.4) and the same hit percentage multiplier (0.5).

So in summary, this system:

• Loosely rewards hitting early (slightly better hit percentage multiplier)
• Strongly rewards hitting consistently (higher hit percentage multiplier)
• Rewards hitting more times (higher hits multiplier)
• Rewards hitting different targets (diminishing returns on hits multiplier)
• Strongly rewards hitting further targets (range exponential multiplier)
• Rewards hitting smaller targets (area divisor)

As far as encouraging people to git gud is concerned, the only thing I think is missing is a “the wind’s acting up” multiplier, which is sorta baked into the range exponential and group-wide hit multipliers.

I'll send this around the office. I think this might be a winner...

 

[joelinux]

for sure, every post is a dumpster fire waiting to happpen, its like watching the Jackass stuff, you are entertaining!

Only to people that don't have the imagination or intellect to think through problems and come up with good solutions.

 

[Long Range 338]

Someone who hits the target earlier has to overcome fewer misses to get their hit percentage up, and all of their shots on that target end up counting for slightly more as a result. So, if someone hits a 1000yd/1sqmoa gong on their third shot and then rings home another 7 times, they get 100^1.25/1*0.8*sqrt(8)=716 target points. The person who takes 9 shots to walk it in has to hit the next 14 consecutive shots to beat that score - which is achievable, but not trivial.

Meanwhile, the “shoot twice and get lucky” shooter only gets a target score of 158 (hit percentage multiplier 0.5, sqrt(hits)=1), which the person who had a bad day beats on their second hit, shot number 4, because of the sqrt(hits) multiplier (1.4) and the same hit percentage multiplier (0.5).

So in summary, this system:

• Loosely rewards hitting early (slightly better hit percentage multiplier)
• Strongly rewards hitting consistently (higher hit percentage multiplier)
• Rewards hitting more times (higher hits multiplier)
• Rewards hitting different targets (diminishing returns on hits multiplier)
• Strongly rewards hitting further targets (range exponential multiplier)
• Rewards hitting smaller targets (area divisor)

As far as encouraging people to git gud is concerned, the only thing I think is missing is a “the wind’s acting up” multiplier, which is sorta baked into the range exponential and group-wide hit multipliers.

If this is an Engineer's idea of fun, I can now clearly see the discrepancy in what is considered fun. 10 minutes of shooting and 2 hours to solve the math...

 

[joelinux]

If this is an Engineer's idea of fun, I can now clearly see the discrepancy in what is considered fun. 10 minutes of shooting and 2 hours to solve the math...

We'll still be shooting, don't you worry, but for some people, designing the structure around a given activity, especially when it is in uncharted waters, holds a massive amount of appeal.

The guns we are shooting were developed by engineers who think of designing guns as fun.

Except Hi-Points. Those were developed by sales support engineers like @seansmd who think of engineers as a bother, because he's heading to the gym in 26 minutes.

 

[gnochi]

If this is an Engineer's idea of fun, I can now clearly see the discrepancy in what is considered fun. 10 minutes of shooting and 2 hours to solve the math...

It is indeed fun! If we know the rules in advance, and roughly how good of a shooter we are, we can optimize how to get the most points for each shot... and then we can use our first few shots to see if the optimization was accurate.

We’re an odd bunch.

 

[joelinux]

It is indeed fun! If we know the rules in advance, and roughly how good of a shooter we are, we can optimize how to get the most points for each shot... and then we can use our first few shots to see if the optimization was accurate.

We’re an odd bunch.

 

[joelinux]

Pardon the snark, but that sounds like a plus ?

Perhaps the following, then, assuming the existence of steel gongs and people being trustworthy enough to keep track of their own hits and misses:

• Each target is worth a base score of [yardage/10]^1.25 / [area in sq. MOA]
• For each shooter on each target, their score is [target’s base score]*[hit percentage on that target]*sqrt([hits])
• The score for each shooter is the sum of their scores for each target

So, someone with 10/100 hits on a 1400yd/1sqmoa target would have a “target score” of 152, while someone with 30/50 hits on a 1000yd/1sqmoa target would have a target score of 1039. Assuming a hit probability of 90% on a 200yd/1sqmoa target, it would take ~18 shots to beat the 1400yd lobber and ~828 shots to beat the 1000yd plinker.

What I like about this sort of scoring system (and the exact numbers can be substantially futzed without greatly impacting the below):

• No matter how long you shoot at a target, if you’re improving, your score will creep up
• You can recover from having initial misses while you figure out wind
• You can’t recover from lobbing shots all over the place
• You’re encouraged to shoot different targets, due to diminishing returns
• You’re encouraged to shoot the furthest/smallest targets you can reliably hit
• Good shooters don’t need to waste a ton of ammo to do well - an F Class competitor who gets 18/20 shots on a 1000yd/0.196sqmoa gong (5” X ring equivalent) will probably clean up the competition with a target score of 6160.

I can't believe I didn't see this originally, because we just plugged it into the model, but someone pointed out that

[hit percentage on that target]*sqrt(hits)

Is the same as

(hits^1.5)/total

Unless we aren't reading your notation correctly. We wanted to double check to make sure we weren't mis-interpreting what you wrote down.

 

[gnochi]

I can't believe I didn't see this originally, because we just plugged it into the model, but someone pointed out that

[hit percentage on that target]*sqrt(hits)

Is the same as

(hits^1.5)/total

Unless we aren't reading your notation correctly. We wanted to double check to make sure we weren't mis-interpreting what you wrote down.

Yep, that’s correct. I split it out the way I did to emphasize the different things I thought were important.

Glad to hear y’all find the system interesting!