Scoring Discussion

As we contemplate the possibilities of a different scoring scheme it's important to identify just what it is that we'd like to make better.

Reducing gaggle motivation is big in my mind. Gaggle flying doesn't measure the right thing (my opinion), is not as much fun as thinking for oneself (my opinion) and is dangerous (everyone agrees). A system that motivates early starting would beneficially reduce the pre-start gaggles, which are often the worst gaggles of all. The suggestion that follows is intended to apply to timed tasks in the US in particular.

I think we should consider as a goal to alter the game so as to motivate distance into the equation. US racing tasks, in recent years, often employ overly short timed task calls. A scoring equation that gave a reason to fly longer by going deep in turn areas or add more turnpoints to a MAT would be desirable from several vantages. It would take away the motivation to hang out playing start gate roulette. It would allow pilots to better use the soaring day to get more flying hours, and OLC points per vacation dollar at a contest. It would reduce the importance of making the last turn at just the right place to get back as close to minimum task time as possible without going under. The latter is an annoying factor to deal with and isn't inherently a soaring skill yet it messes with peoples' scores especially if they come up short.

Rewarding the pilot that goes long means that the scoring formula would have to allow the possibility that we award more points to the pilot that flies 300 miles at 65 mph than the pilot who goes 67 mph over 200 miles, as example. That makes this an idea that has to be internalized a bit since we've never done racing that way before. How much distance incentive to insert would be a matter for debate. I don't think it would take much to change the game for the better.

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:10:44 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
To try and get this going separate from the discussion of the ongoing World Championships,I think we can agree:

Any scoring system will have an unintended consequences.

Current FAI scoring system used at World and Continental Championships tends to encourage group flying (reward for striking out on your own and completing when nobody else does is very small, but the penalty for coming up short is very large). It also does not provide speed point in proportion to the best speed. And it can compress (or expand) scores by having people intentionally land out.

Pilots don't like the idea of being 20 KPH faster than the slowest guy, but still getting the same number of points as him (minimum speed points).

Now, feel free to discuss various scoring system options, and be prepared for people to comment on the "unintended consequences" of that method.

Ready.... Go!

Does anyone have history of why FAI is based on a 2X for the speed points? i see that it encourages higher risk flying, but the high hit for land-out promotes the opposite.

The original thinking was that this would create an incentive to take risks to go fast(or far) to get a big points gain. Sometimes it does have that result.
UH

I just came here to collect headers and count sock puppets.

At 23:21 19 January 2017, wrote:
In sailing you are allowed to "drop" a bad race result. The impact of
this
=
is that one bad result does not mean that the competition is over for
you.
=
This could be a way of encouraging flying along as the cost of one
bad day
=
is small compared to the possibility of being faster than the gaggle.


George Moffat, who was also a championship sailor, proposed that 40
years ago, but it was overcome by events, meaning devalued days.
Dropping a day only works fairly if every day has equal value for the
winner, ie 1000 points.

RO

On Thursday, 19 January 2017 21:19:52 UTC+2, John Cochrane wrote:
Steve:

Thanks, yes, let's keep Benalla on Benalla and scoring on scoring. My concrete proposal

points = (day devaluation) x max [ 1000 x speed / winner speed, 750 x distance , winner distance].

Let's leave day devaluation out of this for the moment, as it's much less important.

The ratio of speed to distance points does not change as a function of land outs. This is the major innovation. Therefore, just finishing vs. just short is always the same thing. We do not have the situation that the only finisher is 1000 with the gaggle just short at 999 while the only just short is 300 with the gaggle at 1000. The lone wolf can strike out.


Interesting proposal, but it creates massive incentive to glide home over that last unlandable forest no matter what altitude. Everyone landing out 5 km short on last good landing place, one tries risky glide home and scores extra 250 points. Current formula gives risk taker only small benefit.

It amazes that there is constantly reference to "planned outlanding" that would give more points than coming home, apparently by changing day factor (?). Such day has never occurred in my career as a competition pilot/organizer, nor have I ever heard of pilot who had even thought about landing out instead of coming home. I doubt that playing this game would require conspiracy of a huge gaggle. It is purely academic scenario and has absolutely nothing to do with real competition flying at any level. Yes, we can speculate AFTERWARDS that if this-and-that pilot would have outlanded, scores would be like that. It has nothing to do with flying tactic.

IGC formula is far from perfect but more I read about new formulas and changes, more I admire it. I think instead of inventing new formula ground up, it would be wiser to carefully adjust current formula to direction wanted (which is not clear at all). It might be slight change to distance/speed points relation, change to minimum time/distance giving 1000p day, day factor (it is very important tool) etc.

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:09:15 AM UTC+3, krasw wrote:
On Thursday, 19 January 2017 21:19:52 UTC+2, John Cochrane wrote:
Steve:

Thanks, yes, let's keep Benalla on Benalla and scoring on scoring. My concrete proposal

points = (day devaluation) x max [ 1000 x speed / winner speed, 750 x distance , winner distance].

Let's leave day devaluation out of this for the moment, as it's much less important.

The ratio of speed to distance points does not change as a function of land outs. This is the major innovation. Therefore, just finishing vs. just short is always the same thing. We do not have the situation that the only finisher is 1000 with the gaggle just short at 999 while the only just short is 300 with the gaggle at 1000. The lone wolf can strike out.


Interesting proposal, but it creates massive incentive to glide home over that last unlandable forest no matter what altitude. Everyone landing out 5 km short on last good landing place, one tries risky glide home and scores extra 250 points. Current formula gives risk taker only small benefit.

It amazes that there is constantly reference to "planned outlanding" that would give more points than coming home, apparently by changing day factor (?). Such day has never occurred in my career as a competition pilot/organizer, nor have I ever heard of pilot who had even thought about landing out instead of coming home. I doubt that playing this game would require conspiracy of a huge gaggle. It is purely academic scenario and has absolutely nothing to do with real competition flying at any level. Yes, we can speculate AFTERWARDS that if this-and-that pilot would have outlanded, scores would be like that. It has nothing to do with flying tactic.

IGC formula is far from perfect but more I read about new formulas and changes, more I admire it. I think instead of inventing new formula ground up, it would be wiser to carefully adjust current formula to direction wanted (which is not clear at all). It might be slight change to distance/speed points relation, change to minimum time/distance giving 1000p day, day factor (it is very important tool) etc.

Very difficult to do a sneaky outlanding as you would have to know, while still in flight and with a choice possible, not only how many other pilots had already made it home but also how many pilots behind you might still make it home.

If you're the guy who could devalue the day by landing out instead of finishing, then it only takes one other pilot still airborne to scratch home at MC=0 and spoil your plans. So you have to be sure that everyone else has already landed, one way or another, and how many made it and how many didn't.

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:36:47 AM UTC+3, Steve Koerner wrote:
As we contemplate the possibilities of a different scoring scheme it's important to identify just what it is that we'd like to make better.

Reducing gaggle motivation is big in my mind. Gaggle flying doesn't measure the right thing (my opinion), is not as much fun as thinking for oneself (my opinion) and is dangerous (everyone agrees). A system that motivates early starting would beneficially reduce the pre-start gaggles, which are often the worst gaggles of all. The suggestion that follows is intended to apply to timed tasks in the US in particular.

I think we should consider as a goal to alter the game so as to motivate distance into the equation. US racing tasks, in recent years, often employ overly short timed task calls. A scoring equation that gave a reason to fly longer by going deep in turn areas or add more turnpoints to a MAT would be desirable from several vantages. It would take away the motivation to hang out playing start gate roulette. It would allow pilots to better use the soaring day to get more flying hours, and OLC points per vacation dollar at a contest. It would reduce the importance of making the last turn at just the right place to get back as close to minimum task time as possible without going under. The latter is an annoying factor to deal with and isn't inherently a soaring skill yet it messes with peoples' scores especially if they come up short.

Rewarding the pilot that goes long means that the scoring formula would have to allow the possibility that we award more points to the pilot that flies 300 miles at 65 mph than the pilot who goes 67 mph over 200 miles, as example. That makes this an idea that has to be internalized a bit since we've never done racing that way before. How much distance incentive to insert would be a matter for debate. I don't think it would take much to change the game for the better.

With the formula I suggested, the 300 mile guy will get 45.5% more points than the 200 mile guy. He'd have to have a speed under 45 mph to get fewer points.

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:45:05 AM UTC+3, Michael Opitz wrote:
At 23:21 19 January 2017, wrote:
In sailing you are allowed to "drop" a bad race result. The impact of
this
=
is that one bad result does not mean that the competition is over for
you.
=
This could be a way of encouraging flying along as the cost of one
bad day
=
is small compared to the possibility of being faster than the gaggle.


George Moffat, who was also a championship sailor, proposed that 40
years ago, but it was overcome by events, meaning devalued days.
Dropping a day only works fairly if every day has equal value for the
winner, ie 1000 points.

As someone who has done the scoring at both regional and worlds level, I've never liked the idea of devaluing days.

The stated reasoning is that difficult days are more about luck than about pilot skill. I think the decades of accumulated results show that to be incorrect -- the guys who win contests overall stand out from the also-rans EVEN MORE on the difficult days.

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 3:59:35 PM UTC+3, krasw wrote:
On Friday, 20 January 2017 11:05:21 UTC+2, Bruce Hoult wrote:
The stated reasoning is that difficult days are more about luck than about pilot skill. I think the decades of accumulated results show that to be incorrect -- the guys who win contests overall stand out from the also-rans EVEN MORE on the difficult days.

Smells like circular argument. Good guys win difficult days and good days, that is exactly what we wan't. If "wrong", lucky pilots would win on difficult days, we would have a problem.

Exactly. The "wrong" lucky pilots are not winning the difficult days (at least not very often) -- so why do we devalue the points? I think it's a mistake.

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:48:22 AM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 3:59:35 PM UTC+3, krasw wrote:
On Friday, 20 January 2017 11:05:21 UTC+2, Bruce Hoult wrote:
The stated reasoning is that difficult days are more about luck than about pilot skill. I think the decades of accumulated results show that to be incorrect -- the guys who win contests overall stand out from the also-rans EVEN MORE on the difficult days.

Smells like circular argument. Good guys win difficult days and good days, that is exactly what we wan't. If "wrong", lucky pilots would win on difficult days, we would have a problem.

Exactly. The "wrong" lucky pilots are not winning the difficult days (at least not very often) -- so why do we devalue the points? I think it's a mistake.

The right reason to devalue is because of a short task given a brief weather window. A four hour task is a better test than a 90 minute task.