"Be sure of your target..." in competition

[JSGlock34]

I recall an IDPA stage from a few years back where you sat at a poker table, surrounded by targets with card suits (hearts, diamonds, spades, clubs) stamped on them. At the buzzer you drew a random card from the top of a deck conveniently placed on the table - the corresponding suit became 'no-shoot' targets, and everything else deemed hostile.

We still rib a friend who drew a card and then promptly shot the nearest target bearing the matching suit (and thus a friendly) with an outstanding controlled pair to the head, followed a split second later with an exclamation of "Kitten" once his brain caught up. Fun times.

[jlw]

I won't argue the "fairness" of it, and I understand the difficulty in programming it into a match, but the lack of target discrimination in matches coupled with walk throughs, etc, do tend to give a false sense of superiority to a vocal group among competitive shooters who fail to make a distinction between being able to plan out a stage versus having to make spontaneous decisions. Perhaps throwing such a stage in a match where the score didn't figure into the final standings would make for some interesting data.

[cclaxton]

There is no truly realistic, time pressure target ID possible in a game that really equals the complexity and stress of a "real" PID. As soon as time becomes a factor in the game, people want to rush and complex PID becomes just another part of the game. Take time out of the equation (like having a ridiculously long PAR) and people can afford to take unrealistic amounts of time to assess targets.

IMHO, the best practice for PID comes from force-on-force, and particularly FOF that doesn't use projectiles (blue/ASP type "guns," SIRT, etc) so you can see facial expressions and eye movement.

Getting people from "shoot everything" to "shoot threats only" as a mental step is fairly easy. Getting to realistic PID under time pressure & stress is much different.

Todd,
I was wondering when you might weigh-in. I agree that complex PID becoming a part of the game, but if we could introduce complex PID into the game wouldn't that still help our mental quickness in making those snap judgements? (Think Luminosity).

I get the idea that simunitions would prevent a good evaluation of a potential threat because of the masks.

Thanks,
Cody

[ToddG]

...but if we could introduce complex PID into the game...

How?

Complex PID (which is just "realistic" PID) to me means:

• no way to know before you see the target (no stage planning, walk throughs, etc)
• changing target status (what was a threat 1s ago is now a non-threat, and vice versa)
• threat indicators that are subtle, confusing, or even questionable ("was that a legit shoot?" needs to be discussed afterwards to draw out the shooter's justification)

I don't see a way you could incorporate that into a game. A guy training up for Iraq might have been 100% justified shooting someone holding nothing more than a cell phone, while a cop or private citizen CONUS can't get away with that. How do you simulate he was reaching for something in his waistband after saying "I'm gonna kill you!" in a way that allows every competitor the same chance in terms of time/score? Etc.

I get the idea behind the "draw a card, don't shoot HEARTS" thing. I've shot, run, and created stages like that plenty of times over the past fifteen years. But that's more a memory trick than anything else. The example of the guy who shot the identified card suit shows what I mean. Do you really think in the heat of the moment he'd accidentally think, "SHOOT ALL THE UNARMED PEOPLE" or "SHOOT ALL THE PEOPLE WITH BADGES" or whatever? No. Those kinds of stages are great because they make you think and that forces people closer to their subconscious shooting level. But it's not simulating target identification. It's not like you're told two seconds before entering a house that all of your teammates are wearing uniforms of the color... wait for it... wait... BLUE GO GO GO GO!

[Sal Picante]

I won't argue the "fairness" of it, and I understand the difficulty in programming it into a match, but the lack of target discrimination in matches coupled with walk throughs, etc, do tend to give a false sense of superiority to a vocal group among competitive shooters who fail to make a distinction between being able to plan out a stage versus having to make spontaneous decisions. Perhaps throwing such a stage in a match where the score didn't figure into the final standings would make for some interesting data.

This is interesting and I agree almost 100%. What is interesting, however, is that this isn't really about shooting, rather about an individual's powers of observation. Kinda like:



I think being confident with the gear/making the shot only helps when you've decided to shoot something...

Personally, I believe that people initially get proficient at stuff by separating/deconstructing the idea/task and focusing on those component parts. It is ok to shoot a match, learn how to shoot and not have to worry about PID'g something. When there is a fair bit of competence, then it makes sense to layer it with something else...

[Chuck Haggard]

Good reading;

http://www.tridentconcepts.com/out-r...ur-headlights/

[cclaxton]

How?

Complex PID (which is just "realistic" PID) to me means:

• no way to know before you see the target (no stage planning, walk throughs, etc)
• changing target status (what was a threat 1s ago is now a non-threat, and vice versa)
• threat indicators that are subtle, confusing, or even questionable ("was that a legit shoot?" needs to be discussed afterwards to draw out the shooter's justification)

I don't see a way you could incorporate that into a game. A guy training up for Iraq might have been 100% justified shooting someone holding nothing more than a cell phone, while a cop or private citizen CONUS can't get away with that. How do you simulate he was reaching for something in his waistband after saying "I'm gonna kill you!" in a way that allows every competitor the same chance in terms of time/score? Etc.

I get the idea behind the "draw a card, don't shoot HEARTS" thing. I've shot, run, and created stages like that plenty of times over the past fifteen years. But that's more a memory trick than anything else. The example of the guy who shot the identified card suit shows what I mean. Do you really think in the heat of the moment he'd accidentally think, "SHOOT ALL THE UNARMED PEOPLE" or "SHOOT ALL THE PEOPLE WITH BADGES" or whatever? No. Those kinds of stages are great because they make you think and that forces people closer to their subconscious shooting level. But it's not simulating target identification. It's not like you're told two seconds before entering a house that all of your teammates are wearing uniforms of the color... wait for it... wait... BLUE GO GO GO GO!

OK, you have convinced me.
Sounds like you are saying that the "draw a card" kinds of stages have some benefit to help us better discriminate targets while shooting under time pressure, but target ID is something you just can't include in competition...it has to be a different skill/mindset.

Thanks,
Cody

[Mr_White]

IMHO, the best practice for PID comes from force-on-force, and particularly FOF that doesn't use projectiles (blue/ASP type "guns," SIRT, etc) so you can see facial expressions and eye movement.

I'll second this. The place I work had a longstanding prohibition from a former administrator against using projectiles in our FOF/scenarios with the private citizens. It was discouraging at first, but we did them anyway with redguns and just said 'bang.' So hokey. But it hit me after not too long, that in foregoing the 'shooting realism' of having projectiles, the decisionmaking aspects of the scenario were greatly enhanced by being able to see faces and receive more of the verbal and nonverbal communication. It introduced some real subtleties that are lacking when wearing a paintball mask or FIST helmet.

[ToddG]

It is ok to shoot a match, learn how to shoot and not have to worry about PID'g something.

I think this needs to be restated and emphasized.

The mere fact that an IDPA/USPSA/Bianchi/Bullseye/Steel match isn't "110% combat, son!" doesn't mean it serves no purpose in developing shooting skills that may be, for lack of a better term, combat relevant. All the PIDliness in the world isn't going to help if you can't land good, fast hits once you've made the decision to go BANGBANGBANG.

Sounds like you are saying that the "draw a card" kinds of stages have some benefit to help us better discriminate targets while shooting under time pressure, but target ID is something you just can't include in competition...it has to be a different skill/mindset.

Sort of.

For example, something I've done in classes before is to put two numbers on a target. Then tell people that when the two numbers add up to an even number it's a threat, an odd number it's a non-threat. Now they have to look at the whole target to find all the information (see both numbers), they have to process that information into a whole picture instead of relying on a single visual reference as a go/no-go, and they have to decide how to deal with the target.

You can further complicate things by throwing in Roman numerals, words ("EVEN" plus an odd number can result in some real fun, for example), etc. It gets people thinking about who they can and can't shoot. But it's still far from a realistic PID.

Now think of that in IDPA terms. If you put your target identifier too far to one side of a target, you may be forcing someone to come too far around cover (penalty!) to ID the threat. Are you going to force him to move back behind cover before engaging? It's got a lot of potential to create bigger problems.

[taadski]

In the very beginning we were. We had targets that would allow you to put a balloon behind either the body or the head, which would drop when the balloon was popped. The problem is that as soon as you how the match to a larger group of people the reset time just becomes unmanageable.

I'd love to have targets that would require 2-3 shots to drop and that are cost effective and easy to reset, but AFAIK they just don't exist.

Our agency uses the similar box style 3D targets and we have played with the balloon thing. As noted it's a hassle and pretty time intensive to reset. We've had pretty good luck using poppers of varying sizes inside the same type cardboard target box. It allows for a similar reactive target and can be juggled with different sized steel to prioritize the need for "better hits". Also, while it perhaps has limited application in a match style environment (because of various calibers and being "fair"), you can set the poppers so that a single hit by itself won't knock it over thus requiring a more rapid string of fire.

FWIW.

t