Hello Guys!
From my little point of view, I agree with Rick, NQ4I.
Here in Europe we will work USA stations as well if the points per QSO don't
go to 6 on low bands. If the way to win is to work as many multipliers as
possible, working North American stations always bring 1 multiplier every 3 or
4 QSOs. So, we will have to concentrate on propagation over the atlantic but,
with 3 points only, there will be no advantage to be near the coast of the
atlantic ocean and you will see many more teams into all of Europe competing
for a winning place. More game, more fun!
Regards,
Fabio Grisafi - IT9GSF.
=====================================================
>----Messaggio originale----
>Da: rick@nq4i.com
>Data: 11/05/2013 11.38
>A: "Jeff Clarke"<ku8e@bellsouth.net>
>Cc: "CQ Contest"<cq-contest@contesting.com>
>Ogg: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is the wpx a prefix test or dx contest?
>
>To say it is an apples to orange comparison, is to say you do not
>comprehend what the topic of conversation has been.
>
>When a fully staffed M-M team has to make 2400 additional qso's to make the
>same score as a M-S team that is not any band full time, is
>what I am talking about. The WPX contest has the geographical advantage
>because of the low band point system that awards a huge advantage
>to any New England station.
>
>Yes it is true that the NQ4I team has won a number of previous
>WPXcontests.....but with that in mind, there was no legit competition
>from New
>England. Had KC1XX operated in this contest, he would, on a bad day make
>30% more qso's than NQ4I and on a good day 80-100% more qsos. These
>qsoscoming from two areas...the low bands and the high bands where he
>has a
>tremendous advantage to hear and work stations that will never be heard or
>worked at the next propagation hop.
>
>My proposal for the point scoring of 3 points per qso regardless makes the
>contest truer to its stated objective and removes the geographical
>advantage. For any M-M there are only so many finite contacts possible.
>KU8E would have us believe that there is a wealth of stateside stations
>that could be worked thus creating a super inflated score for the NQ4I
>team. Not true. The qsos made would not improve, because
>there are not additional qso's to be made. The well is already dry.
>
>So we are back to the low band point system that awards more points for
>stations that have geographical nearness and penalizes those that do not.
>
>Suffice it to say, K1LZ and his team are not dumb....they know that to make
>a winning score they need to make as many 6 point qso's as possible...the
>NQ4I team likewise knows the point breakdown and the need for 6 point
>qso's....K1LZ
>spends only a few hours on 80m...NQ4I has
>2 full time ops and maintains a strong presence on the band both cq'ing and
>S & P'ing and cannot begin to work as many qso's as the brief foray on the
>band of K1LZ.
>
>To carry the score extrapolation a little further out. in this example, it
>takes the NQ4I team 2400 qso's to equal K1LZ's score...had KC1XX been on,
>the score differential would be an additional 3000 qso's deficit for the
>NQ4I team to over come. In other words for the NQ4I team to equal the
>score differential from a KC1XX competitor, some thing around 5400
>qsoswould make the scores comparable, nearly twice as many
>qso's.
>
>If we consider KC1XX makes the exact number of qso's as NQ4I ( and we
>assume he maintains 3.17 qso points ratio as K1LZ) we have:
>
>7077 qso's 1450 prefixes = 32.6 million points
>
>applying 3 points per qso we have
>
>7077 qso's 1450 prefixes = 30.7 Mil
>
>The scores are equal because the same number of qso's were made, and to
>clinch the win, one of the two teams needs to work another prefix, not
>another low band contact where advantage exists now.
>
>KU8e would have us believe that NQ4I is hoarding stateside qso's and if the
>rules change to 3 points per contact, then NQ4I will have a tremendous
>advantage. I say make the contest true to it's stated objective....a prefix
>contest...plain and simple. The winner is determined by who works the most
>qso's and prefixes...not who has the best geographical advantage with an
>outdated and biased point system.
>
>de NQ4I
>
>
>On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why this is a big deal?? Comparing a M/S score to a M/M score is like
>> comparing apples to oranges. It’s ridiculous to consider giving 3 points
>> for domestic QSO’s in this contest. I live in GA – probably 75 miles from
>> NQ4I and we would have a HUGE advantage vs. the East Coast on 20 and 40
>> meters because of our skip zone to the highly populated USA call areas. Be
>> thankful that the rules were changed to give points for W/K QSO’s to make
>> the contest more fun or the difference in scores would be even greater. It
>> used to be ZERO points. Plus NQ4I has won M/M several times so I don’t
>> understand why he has a beef against the rules.
>>
>>
>> Maybe give some credit to Krassy and his team for a great score. K1LZ has
>> consistently put in some great scores in M/S that have beat some of the top
>> contenders in M2X in several contests.
>>
>> Jeff KU8E
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|