> What I'd like to see is a contest where the rules made the trajectory
much
> less stable, more like a fighter plane which is designed with
aerodynamics
> that allow small rudder movements to result in very agile maneuvers.
You mean, "a plane that crashes a lot"? :-) Just kidding...
We have to be careful not to turn the current game of skill into a game
of chance. Any successful game of skill has to have enough elements of
chance to be exciting but still have enough consistency for devising a
strategy to be important. Otherwise, players will not invest in
creating strategy.
Certainly, there are elements of chance but contesting is rewarding (and
useful) because the dominant factor for success is radio know-how (i.e.
skill), including, yes, choosing an advantageous location according to
the rules. You have to know what you're doing to place well.
Contesting is somewhat unique as a sport in that an operator can perform
in the top echelons for a very long time - decades, in fact - and that
is largely due to the overwhelming importance of experience and skill.
Reducing the value of strategy would also reduce the value of experience
and know-how - a risky proposition.
What if it were not obvious whether one should be running 120/hour or doing
S&P on a band with inferior propagation? What if it were not obvious
whether an east coast station should beam toward EU during an opening or
toward the west coast of the US? What if it were not clear whether one
would be more or less likely to win running legal limit or 300W?
There is *plenty* of uncertainty now. There is no "winning move"
(except possibly to Prince Edward Island or Aruba, but I digress) that
guarantees success from any particular QTH. Day to day, hour to hour,
minute to minute changes in propagation; equipment failure; local
weather or noise - all of these muddy the waters sufficiently that while
strategy and skill are the way to bet (Damon Runyan), one can still be
overtaken by events (Lord Chesterton). No need to start adding
additional random elements - we have quite enough of that now, thanks.
It might not be a bad idea to create more options for successful
strategies, though.
Communications is about path optimization, and I think contest rules tend
to reward the over-optimization of some paths and the near disregard of
others.
I agree, more or less, in that the "sweet spots" make alternative
winning strategies hard to find. Every sport changes what skills it
values over time - baseball once included the spitball, sharpened
cleats, and "chin music" as important elements of the game. Today, not
so much. You are free to propose new rules or scoring systems or
whatever to address those inequities. Run the numbers and see what
happens. Make a new rule set, run a CWAC, and publish the results. If
it looks like fun, people will try it. The NA Sprints were pretty
radical at the time - no running???!!! - yet seem to have caught on.
Remember that contesting must be about improving our understanding of
the radio art and our communication skills. Whatever changes are
proposed need to keep those two principles of our Basis and Purpose
first and foremost. This is especially important with a number of
previously hard-learned skills being replaced with technology - such as
tuning one's radio to find new stations to work. Our biggest challenge
is to figure out how to have radio competitions in this Brave New World
and still keep good ol' radio know-how the dominant factor in
determining who succeeds. Game on!
73, Ward N0AX
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|