Scoring Discussion

I think this all depends on exactly what the basis for the argument to change the scoring system is. Safety? That has some short term merit with the 2 collisions here, but the better safety arguement is probably 1 glider per country and half the total number of gliders. Half the gliders is a major break with WGC traditions however and has not been adopted despite years of effort by several distinguished parties. I personally think this is the smartest solution. If the arguement is fairness, that is going to be hard to close as well. Rules are relative. Everyone here is playing under the same rule system and this is how world championships have been scored for decades. Start gaggle games are clearly enjoyable to many from a tactical perspective. Most here feel gaggles are fine, they just get out of hand in the blue from time to time. As I have often expressed, flying around alone injects an element of luck into the game. This is why gaggles exist, to counter that risk. Don't forget, we still have large pre-start and on course gaggles in the US under our experimental rule system (how it is perceived by other countries) and system of no racing tasks (OLC timed task only) culture. So our safety arguement is already quite flawed in my opinion.

All I will say is that the gaggle "tendency" is very strong here. The reason is, partially, that many pilots have the confidence that they can A) stay with the gaggle and B) pass the gaggle and outscore it. But in reality most who are playing the gaggle well here fly with the same group all the way around (such as yesterday). Anything that can be done with scoring or general organization to de-incentivize this sounds good for safety. But this will have to go to an extreme to successfully break up gaggles here (or at home in the US). Also, the need for scoring system change is not the opinion of the majority here. Gaggles are clearly accepted as part of the sport. Most I have takes too do not fully believe that slight changes in scoring ratios will have much effect. This is the feeling I get at least. They seem to favor pleading with the pilots to behave :-).

As I recently demonstrated, along with several others in other classes, this scoring system does make it very hard to catch up once significant points are lost after an A) slightly slow day (1kph is typically worth 20 points, 5kph 100 points on slower days around 100 kph for the winner). In other words, it is very easy to lose points, but extroidinarily difficult to gain points back in terms of scoring scenarios. A landout with the main gaggle finishing is literally game over (not saying that's entirely wrong but, yet again, taking risk to fly alone is "sorta" punished twice). All this equals a huge tactical incentive to stay in touch with the gaggle. This is part of the sport of soaring as flying alone can create huge anomalies in scoring. The best pilots/teams here are experts at controlling risk.

One other idea that I personally love is a 25-75 km from start "bonus points steering turn" (say 50 points for the first pilot, 30 for second, 20 third and so on. Something the gaggle will have to "let go" to play the typical 20-30 minute behind the early starters game.

The truth is that it's unlikely that the IGC is going to make a major change in scoring formula. The political power to keep this system appears strong. I for one think many changes are necessary.

Why not some concrete, comprehensive safety rules? For example: a pilot who gets within 100 feet of another gets a penalty. This seems reasonable, no? If being in a close gaggle meant several 10 point penalties, the gaggles would be dangerous for points! Hmmm?

Some number crunchers here did some interesting analysis on which pilots (in each class) were flying in closest proximity to others. This produced a bar chart which was displayed on the big theatre screen at the pilots meeting for ALL to see. It appeared to be fairly accurate (happily, I was among the lowest "closeness" in 18m) in my opinion from what I had witnessed. Peer pressure like this is fine but without actual penalties, gaggles will remain aggressive as it is a skill to use others visually as our vario and try to gain competitors in all gaggle thermals. This effort to climb better than others in the gaggle is what makes them risky.

Looks like no fly today here.

Sean

One other idea that I personally love is a 25-75 km from start "bonus points steering turn" (say 50 points for the first pilot, 30 for second, 20 third and so on). Something the gaggle will have to "let go" to play the typical 20-30 minute behind the early starters game.

I like this idea too, but would use a radius along track from the centre of the start line (better for AATs which would allow the pilot to choose a better energy line).

Why not some concrete, comprehensive safety rules? For example: a pilot who gets within 100 feet of another gets a penalty. This seems reasonable, no? If being in a close gaggle meant several 10 point penalties, the gaggles would be dangerous for points! Hmmm?

I like this idea a lot. Listening to the radio feed, I hear a lot of "contest id whatever just passed me 20 ft away". I don't see any specific penalty in the SC3A for flying too closely, so to the causal reader, it appears that IGC is not concerned that in two WGC that I have followed closely (at Uvalde, watching Benalla) there have been four mid-airs, with four gliders lost and four damaged, and two pilots injured enough for hospitalization.

I don't see much difference between a hazardous manuevre during a finish which gets: "Finish: hazardous maneuver 25 pts, n x 25 pts, Disqualification" and one in a gaggle, although I agree the ground is not forgiving.

Why no specific penalty for flying too close in a gaggle?


Some number crunchers here did some interesting analysis on which pilots (in each class) were flying in closest proximity to others. This produced a bar chart which was displayed on the big theatre screen at the pilots meeting for ALL to see. It appeared to be fairly accurate (happily, I was among the lowest "closeness" in 18m) in my opinion from what I had witnessed. Peer pressure like this is fine but without actual penalties, gaggles will remain aggressive as it is a skill to use others visually as our vario and try to gain competitors in all gaggle thermals. This effort to climb better than others in the gaggle is what makes them risky.

What a great idea - not difficult to do, with IGC files. Define a distance which is unsafe, and gives point penalties which either:
- grow rapidly to discourage close flying; or
- if you are high pilot on the graph, you sit the next flying day - a soaring "time out". Make it carry into the Championship from the practice days as well. Multiple mid-airs at WGCs shouldn't be common. Leaving it to peer pressure has not worked.

Looks like no fly today here.

Bummer but I'll get a lot more sleep tonight in Canada as a result!

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 8:10:44 PM UTC+3, 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!

Ok .. how about ...

rawScore = speed/referenceSpeed * distance/referenceDistance

finalScore = 1000 * rawScore/max(rawScore)

For those who don't finish the task, their task time and distance are to the GPS fix immediately before they declare a landout (by pressing a button, or possibly by a radio call). The pilot might then proceed to land out, or return to home, or start some means of propulsion.

If someone lands out just short of home they will score a little less than someone who overflies them as they land and makes it home. For concreteness, if pilot A lands out 2 km short on a 300 km task, after 3h20m on task, they'll score the same as someone about 90 seconds behind them but who makes it home.

If two pilots land in the same field, then the one who go there first will score more points.

I specified "reference" not "winner" deliberately. It doesn't actually matter what the reference distance and speed are, as everyone is normalized relative to them. Make them the task length and 3 hours (or 5 hours). Or the task length and the fastest finisher's speed. Or the distance flown by the longest landout, and their speed getting there. It doesn't actually make any difference.

This formula would work equally well for conventional tasks and AATs.

The astute will have noticed that in ...

speed/referenceSpeed * distance/referenceDistance

.... speed = distance/time and therefore this is actually proportional to ....

distance^2/time

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.

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 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 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

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.

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 4:10:44 AM UTC+11, 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!

alongalone.(autocorrect)
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:21:27 AM UTC+11, 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.

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 4:10:44 AM UTC+11, 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!

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