If the same people win, why change anything? While nobody wants to see
the US working US...Ok nobody outside the US, consider for a moment that
the USA is much like EU now. EU gets to work other EU without penalty
even though EU is effectively a bunch of states like the US. What
exactly is the difference? Each US state creates their own laws and rules.
What we are seeing is a reflection of society. Everyone feels entitled
to something.
Trying to level the playing field while admirable will probably never
happen. Can we look at ways to do it. Yes.
Could you ever level the playing field of a car race where you allowed
entrants to race Formula One cars. old beat up 65 VW bugs, Semi trucks,
farm tractors, motorcycles and bicycles? This is exactly what we have
in contesting. We have competitors with super stations to competitors
with just enough to hear and get out.
WRTC is probably as close as we will ever come to a level field of play,
but only a select few get to compete. This is reality as you can only
have so many station so close and monitored etc.
While we have a tribanders and wires class in some contests there is no
monitoring, no oversight. Maybe through local clubs, areas around the
world could have "WRTC" like stations competing against each other.
Club committees could certify a station as "WRTC" or "TW".
I am not sure all that work would make any difference in the big picture.
Mike W0MU
On 12/2/2013 8:00 AM, Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Bravo Fabio!
That sounds like easiest fix to presently antiquated scoring per QSO.
Also, this should eliminate ZERO points for own country.
Any changes to scoring in the contest should try to keep the same
final score or allow increases so the All Time Records retain some value.
Distance scoring will complicate things too much and give big boost to
those few sitting in the middle of nowhere far away from heavy density
areas (where everything is biiig points) and bitching will continue.
It will be interesting to see the analysis and comparison of few top
scorers, I suspect it will be not too far off and more "just" for
number of QSOs.
Some time ago I tried to come up with the "ideal" contest rules for
Tesla Cup, using grid square multipliers and other equalizing
measures, but nobody helped to implement, it is easier to moan about
"injustice".
73 Yuri, K3BU.us
www.MVmanor.com
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 03:38 AM, Fabio I4UFH wrote:
> Hi Guys,
Even it will be impossible to equalize the world, with the right
equation, i have one more simple idea, that i didn’t show up, this
year, apologies if if has still be discussed in the past :
Without scrambling software developers or online scores, or Software
committee,
to endorse the DX QSO, i can suggest a different points related to
your CQZone, no more Country or Continents.
Same CQ Zone = 1 Points
Adjacent Zone = 2 Points
Other Zone = 3 Points
For adjacent Zone i mean the CQZone that has borders with your Zone.
Benefit ? Well everyone still will try the DX QSO. PJ will still have
3 points with NA,
but also TI, XE Zone 3 and 4 at 2 points, and zone 5 a 3 points, LU
almost 3 points,
CN, EA8 2 points zone 14, 15 and 5, 3 point others, 9M will add more
bloods with almost
JA’s a 3 points .. etc. etc.
it’s is a brief analyze, obviously there will be some place in the
world that still had advantages,
but are advantages related with his far away location, that is the
core of the discussion.
To calculate is very easy, every Zone has it’s adjacent Zone , so no
need to send different reports,
no need to distance approximate calculation, no need to add K’s
factor to correct polar path, simply
a different point of view related with what still have … the CQZones..
If i will have time into the December Holiday i will try to rescore
old logs with these new rules !
Just one more cents
73 de Fabio I4UFH
Il giorno 29/nov/2013, alle ore 21:36, Rick Kiessig ha scritto:
I think it's a mistake to look at distance-based scoring strictly as a
measure of effort to complete a QSO. Even though it's a much better
measure
than DXCC or Zone, that's not the real intent, IMO.
Instead, I think the goal is to get population-dense areas to point
their
antennas away from each other, and out toward the rest of the world, by
encouraging multiple contacts with distant places. CQWW's scoring
system of
zero points for QSOs in your own country is a good first step, but when
there are many countries (or another continent) right next door,
it's not as
effective as it should be.
73, Rick ZL2HAM / ZM1G
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of
Aldewey@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:31 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Scoring System needs revision?
Distance based scoring is something that was looked at in detail for
ARRL DX
contest a couple years ago. While it had it's advocates, there were a
couple main concerns that caused us to set it aside for now. The
first was
that, depending on propagation, the distance of a Contest QSO, does not
always equate to the effort needed to make that Q. In many cases,
on 10
and 15 meters for example, it is easier for someone Florida (for
example)
to make a contact with EU than it is the Caribbean. The CAC actually
worked with someone who re scored a couple past DX Contests using the
Distance Based Scoring and the results did not change all that much.
Scores in the middle part of the U.S. rose and scores on the east
coasts
went down and the order of the top ten changed a little but not
that much.
Logging software would have to change of course and we were
concerned that
there were many contesters that would not be comfortable with Grid
Squares
(which would give the most accurate results). Finally, the
majority of the
contesters we talked to were not in favor or such a change.
So, at least for now, the change was not recommended.
73,
AL, K0AD
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|