A Maidenhead system is not going to change any advantage enjoyed by western
Euros and northeastern Americans (and Maritime Canadians).
The primary advantage these areas enjoy is relatively easy propagation to the
most populous parts of each area.
If I, for example, were to get, say, 2x credit for working longer paths to
Europe than, say, VO1, it won't help me because it's not as though I, if I had
the best station possible in Manitoba, am going to work even half the Europeans
that VO1MP is. I'm sure there have been plenty of times when Gus is running
Euros at astonishing rates on 10 when all we hear is crickets.
Let's say your DX system equals 4x the score per contact. Four times zero is
still zero.
Plus, a Maidenhead system would put some areas of the world into a double
disadvantage. For example, I know I would have far more success running JAs
from W5WMU than I would have from even a comparable station in VE4. So from
VE4, you get fewer distance points (we are closer to JA than Louisiana is), on
contacts that are far more difficult to make.
You can't assume that distance covered is the only factor making contacts more
difficult. It might be the case on 160, but even there, we can't even hear 90
per cent of the stuff you guys work.
73, kelly, ve4xt
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 2, 2016, at 17:04, Trent Sampson <vk4ts@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> You are talking about massive fundamental change to the most popular event on
> the calendar.
>
> There is a reason it is the most popular - People like it. (despite the
> grumbles)
>
> Adding the complexity to the exchange may or may not work - Your proposal is
> almost the same as the recently revived Makrothen RTTY Contest. Another
> example of where DX based scoring failed to excite the punter despite the
> best intentions of those involved.
>
> My suggestion would be this needs its own weekend and promotion and nothing
> to do with the CQWW as we all know and enjoy.
>
> From VK, we know we can win, Single band Worldwide in the CQWW and very
> rarely a Multi Op - how do we motivate ourselves ? We reference against our
> own scores - If the standard was to win WorldWide from VK we would have quit
> contesting years ago.
>
> Distance based ? We would love it - because our paths to anywhere are huge.
> JA - 7000km USA West Coast 11,000 EU 15,000 - Apply that to our logs with
> 5000+ QSOs and I can assure you VK and ZL would become the go to place for
> Contests if scoring was distance based.
>
> See you in the Makrothen in 2017 :-)
>
> Regards
>
>
> Trent Sampson
> VK4TS
> Po Box 275 Mooloolaba QLD 4557
> Mobile 0408497550
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Hammond
> Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2016 6:49 AM
> To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] DX Contest
>
> I'm changing the topic from "It's not the sunspots folks" to "DX Contest",
> since the discussion changed from propagation to what constitutes a "DX"
> contest.
>
> If it's a DX contest that you desire, why not change the scoring system to be
> based on the Maidenhead 2 x 1 degree grid square system that's used in the
> VHF/UHF world? Logging software would have to be "enhanced" to perform a
> real-time calculation of the great circle (short path?) distance between
> stations. This way, DX is actually equal to distance, not some political
> border / boundary. Q's would be Q's, no matter where, but multipliers would
> be grid squares, with a weighting based on distance that encourages or
> rewards "real DX". This levels the playing field, doesn't it? Now San Diego
> can work Boston, for more "DX value" than say London working Paris. It's DX
> you're trying to encourage, right, not necessarily Q's?
>
> This would remove the "advantage" that many are arguing Europeans have over
> other parts of the world, or that the East Coast has over the West Coast. In
> this contest, I could work people in my own city, my own state, my own call
> area, but my DX score wouldn't be very good.
>
> For example:
>
> Score = Q's x grid square / distance value, where grid square /distance value
> =
>
>
> 0-1000 miles, 1 pt
> 1001-5000 miles, 2 pt
> 5001-10000 miles, 3 pt
>> 10,001 miles, 4 pt
>
> Yep, log checking would be more complex, too, but of course it would be
> automated. Anyone claiming a grid square is a greater distance that it
> actually is would have a busted Q.
>
> This scoring system still rewards hams in high population-density areas, so
> the weighting would have to be non-linear. Essentially the contest would be
> less of a DXCC entity contest and more of true world-wide (work anybody)
> contest with a reward for longer-distance Q's.
>
> Interested to hear the pros / cons of a DX contest structured this way.
> Pardon me if there is already a contest (I'm not aware of) that is already
> scored this way. I think the Stew Perry Top Band Challenge rewards DX Q's by
> distance, but that's a one-band contest.
>
> 73, Tom
> K8BKM
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|