Scoring Discussion

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.

It's not magic. There still will be gaggles. 750 is still a bad outcome. But it tilts the playing field a bit to the lone wolf, early starter, etc.

The main "defect" mentioned in the previous thread, is that someone going 66% of winner's speed and someone going 75% of winner's speed get the same points. Reply: That's already in IGC rules. Very slow finishes are counted as landing out. Reply 2: Yeah, but so what. If you lower the 750, then you lower distance points, meaning that going further on distance days counts less, and that a land out is more of a disaster. On that basis 800 distance points makes more sense.

Notice also that by removing 2 x speed -- which was pointless, as it makes speed points just as easy to get as to lose, and does not affect the final ranking -- these distance points are the equivalent of half as many under current IGC rules. So even 750 is harsh. That's another argument for 800 or even more.

Day devaluation? Again, it's a separate issue, but I would also not base this on land outs. We only use land outs to measure things because we didn't use to have gps. A concrete proposal:

day devaluation = min [ median time from start to finish or landing of top 10% of pilots / 3 hours, 1]

We measure time on course for everyone. If the top 10% of pilots fly 3 hours, it's a fully valid day. If we all land out, we're fighting for the full 750 distance points. This keeps the current IGC philosophy that distance days are valid days. It's the median and the top 10% so that one pilot does not affect the devaluation formula -- no incentive to sit on a ridge and orbit to run up the clock and lower the devaluation of a hopeless day

Advantage 2: This is all really really simple! It also removes the quirks of current IGC rules that encourage pilots to intentionally land out on some days.

John Cochrane

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.

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.
____________

I believe this is only true if practically everyone lands out and you are the sole finisher. The more common case is you are (or believe you may be since you don't have perfect information) one of a few landouts. In Sean's example landing out cost him nearly 700 points. In general IGC rules are much harsher on outlandings than US rules which are harsher on outlandings than John's proposal (most of the time except in the case of a distance day with near 100% landouts). You are really describing only the case of the one guy who manages to get close to home on a difficult day where IGC rules say "don't bother".

Having looked at the issue of marginal glides home and scoring quite a lot I've concluded that most pilots, if they get within a marginal glide from home, will go for it - for reasons unrelated to points. A landout and retreive is a significant risk and hassle all by itself.

Andy Blackburn
9B

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:43:59 PM UTC+3, Andy Blackburn wrote:
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.
____________

I believe this is only true if practically everyone lands out and you are the sole finisher. The more common case is you are (or believe you may be since you don't have perfect information) one of a few landouts. In Sean's example landing out cost him nearly 700 points. In general IGC rules are much harsher on outlandings than US rules which are harsher on outlandings than John's proposal (most of the time except in the case of a distance day with near 100% landouts). You are really describing only the case of the one guy who manages to get close to home on a difficult day where IGC rules say "don't bother".

Having looked at the issue of marginal glides home and scoring quite a lot I've concluded that most pilots, if they get within a marginal glide from home, will go for it - for reasons unrelated to points. A landout and retreive is a significant risk and hassle all by itself.

If you've got any brains you'll have scouted safe landout places 5km, 10km, 20km from home field in various directions -- or, better, responsible contest organizers will have done that for you. So hassle, yes, but hopefully not as much risk as pressing on with zero safety margin.

I've concluded that most pilots, if they get within a marginal glide
from
h=
ome, will go for it - for reasons unrelated to points. A landout and
retrei=
ve is a significant risk and hassle all by itself.

Andy Blackburn
9B


It all depends on the landable fields on the final glide to the finish
line. Given good fields and no obstructions, I think most WGC
contenders will drive straight ahead hoping for some "help" plus
ground effect in order to get across that finish line. If they fall
short,
they just land safely straight ahead. It's when there are obstructions
or poor landing choices on short final where that decision comes more
into play.

RO

Hi Mike - Two thoughts.

1) It's hard not to have points on the table if you want to have speed finishers ALL earn more than the longest landout AND you want some points spread across speeds. The additional variable is how much gaggling is induced by a system where lone landouts take a 700 point hit and line finishers get zero credit.

2) How much are points the primary motive for pressing a marginal glide home versus a "deliberate" landout? I guess some, but my sense is there is a lower limit attributable to "get-home-itis". People want to get home for risk and convenience reasons no matter what so that's what plays against safety concerns once points are off the table. There's only so much you can do to discourage retreive aversion. IGC rules are particularly harsh on land outs if they are in the minority (up to 700 points) and mild if there are lots of finishers, but how is a pilot to know exactly which in a case where he MIGHT be able to get home but it's marginal. There will likely be gliders behind you who might get home, and who really gives up if they think they can make it? An uncertain number of points at stake (but probably some) and a desire to get home anyway.

3) The bigger issue for me is the complexity, misunderstanding, adverse incentives (gaggling, start-gate roulette and deliberate landouts to deny a competitor points - which has happened on rare occasions which is pretty bad) of the current scoring. Mostly I wonder about the appropriateness of a system where you can drop 700 points by landing 2km short. That seems pretty harsh. I question the whole system of using other pilots flights to determine my score. I get the rationale, but I don't think it necessarily holds water AND it's complex. I think all of this is worthy of some deeper consideration. John's proposal does a pretty decent job at addressing many of these issues, though a thorough pressure testing would be needed.

Andy Blackburn
9B

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 12:59:48 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Three thoughts.

("Our main weapon is fear - and surprise!")



.. Hi Mike - Two thoughts.

1) It's hard not to have points on the table if you want to have speed finishers ALL earn more than the longest landout AND you want some points spread across speeds. The additional variable is how much gaggling is induced by a system where lone landouts take a 700 point hit and line finishers get zero credit.

2) How much are points the primary motive for pressing a marginal glide home versus a "deliberate" landout? I guess some, but my sense is there is a lower limit attributable to "get-home-itis". People want to get home for risk and convenience reasons no matter what so that's what plays against safety concerns once points are off the table. There's only so much you can do to discourage retreive aversion. IGC rules are particularly harsh on land outs if they are in the minority (up to 700 points) and mild if there are lots of finishers, but how is a pilot to know exactly which in a case where he MIGHT be able to get home but it's marginal. There will likely be gliders behind you who might get home, and who really gives up if they think they can make it? An uncertain number of points at stake (but probably some) and a desire to get home anyway.

3) The bigger issue for me is the complexity, misunderstanding, adverse incentives (gaggling, start-gate roulette and deliberate landouts to deny a competitor points - which has happened on rare occasions which is pretty bad) of the current scoring. Mostly I wonder about the appropriateness of a system where you can drop 700 points by landing 2km short. That seems pretty harsh. I question the whole system of using other pilots flights to determine my score. I get the rationale, but I don't think it necessarily holds water AND it's complex. I think all of this is worthy of some deeper consideration. John's proposal does a pretty decent job at addressing many of these issues, though a thorough pressure testing would be needed.

Andy Blackburn
9B

US rules had a "drop a day" provision, brilliantly worked out by John Good to overcome the obvious problems. It was optional. I thought it was great in addition to the obvious reasons because it keeps a pilot's interest in a contest. If you land out on the first day of the contest its no longer, well that's over let's wait until next year, and your 10 day gliding vacation is now just fun flying.

It died on the vine as no CD ever wanted to try it. I guess figuring out the existing rules is hard enough, nobody wants to try new ones. And pilots didn't ask for it. If you only ask for things in winter on RAS and don't pester CDs to try it, it never happens. Same thing happened to racehorse starts and an integration of grand prix type racing to US contest tasks. They were introduced as rules options after a RAS storm over the winter on how much fun it would be, then nobody ever used it.

John Cochrane

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:07:55 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 12:59:48 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Three thoughts.

("Our main weapon is fear - and surprise!")

I wasn't expecting that.