This only touches big ham population centers.
Offer that solution to VK/ZL, the rest of OC, SA, etc. They won't buy it.
With all due preliminary analysis the name of the game is distance based
scoring.
My only fear is that those EUs running 10 and 15 KW may want to buy
broadcasting stations to run with 100/500 Kw if they see this distance
scoring negatively impacts them.
I've recently found a QRZ.com page of a big EU MM saying: "...One picture
says more than a thousand words.." talking about their antenna work.
On a page of one of their technicians a Creative (Made in the USA by some
JA guy 15 KW linear amp can be seen in one corner).
If a picture is worth more than a thousand words these guys should be
banned for life in contesting.
And for those proudly showing your TL 922s. Please put the exciters in the
closet, have guts, and show what you really use.
Vy 73
LU5DX
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Dave Edmonds <dave@pkministrywebs.com>wrote:
> I just worked about 100 stations during CQWW CW. I'm not a dx chaser and
> prefer the more US contests, but I had an "out of the box" thought about
> this discussion.
>
> What about having winners for each QSO Point Value?
>
> We would have 3 separate winners for each QSO point category (1, 2, 3)
>
> The log with the most 3 point contacts would win the 3 point QSO award. The
> log with the most 2 point contacts would win the 2 point QSO award. The log
> with the most 1 point contacts would receive the 1 point QSO award. Each
> award would stand on it's own.. There could also be an overall winner..
>
> This approach gives those who have limited power/antennas the ability to
> compete over the same distance as others. I could work Canada and the North
> American countries and will be competitive in the specific point category..
>
> I'm new to CQWW contest, but been around contests since 1975. Running low
> power and typically single band contests.
>
> 73's
>
> Dave
> WN4AFP
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:41 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Interesting point about bonus points. Online games specifically 1st
> > shooters give bonuses for all sorts of actions in game.
> >
> > How about a bonus for working 10, 100,1000 F stations. A bonus for
> > working 10 F stations on 5 bands or 6 bands. A bonus for working 10
> > stations over X distance away. I am sure there are tons of other fun and
> > meaningful bonuses that just are not popping in my head at the moment.
> >
> > This type of scoring could created a whole new realm of strategy. I doubt
> > it would ever be adopted to the big contests but who knows.
> >
> > Mike W0MU
> >
> >
> > On 11/29/2013 8:30 AM, Rudy Bakalov wrote:
> >
> >> Randy,
> >> The survey excluded demographics data and therefore we simply don't know
> >> if it polled the right people. Ditto for the members of the CQ Contest
> >> reflector- chances are most of them have the incentive of keeping the
> >> current rules. But frankly, the reason we may want to change the rules
> of
> >> CQ WW is to
> >> make it more fun, exciting, and challenging for all. Give it a fresh
> >> identity to stand out from other contests.
> >>
> >> Adding the the Classic category is a good example of adding a challenge
> >> to the contest. Yes, challenge- picking a winning strategy for
> maximizing
> >> the 24 hour operating time. Personally, I'd like to see it increased to
> 36
> >> hours, but 24 is just fine as is.
> >>
> >> Moving to distance-based scoring is another good possibility enabled by
> >> the prevalent use of computer logging. Add the grid square to the
> exchange
> >> and you get not only the data to calculate distance, but also the added
> >> challenge of receiving an unique piece of information (instead of the
> >> generic CQ Zone).
> >>
> >> How about borrowing ideas from other games? For example, add points
> >> (current scoring model) or bonus distance (distance based scoring) for
> >> working the same station on more than one band.
> >>
> >>
> >> The point here is that there are opportunities to improve the contest,
> >> not just tweak old rules that no longer serve the purpose from the past.
> >>
> >> Rudy N2WQ
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net>
> >> To: 'Bob Kupps' <n6bk@yahoo.com>; cq-contest@contesting.com
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:41 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule
> >>
> >> Attempts to introduce scoring changes for other areas of the world was
> >> included as a question topic in the 2013 CQ WW participant survey.
> Review
> >> the voting results and the comments in the pdf file at
> >> http://cqww.com/blog/?p=150
> >>
> >> The first level challenge is to define the problem (or even if there is
> >> one). Then to define what the scoring should optimize. Only then can
> you
> >> rationally discuss the options.
> >>
> >> Maintaining the status quo is strong with reflector readers.
> >>
> >> Randy, K5ZD
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> Bob Kupps
> >>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 12:22 AM
> >>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> >>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule
> >>>
> >>> Hi and thanks for all the comments.
> >>>
> >>> I am persuaded by the arguments in favor of retaining the 2 point rule
> >>> for NA. In fact those arguments apply to other continents as well and
> IMO
> >>> applying the 2 point rule equally across the globe for all intra-
> >>> continental Qs would seem to go a long way toward reducing by half the
> >>> penalty for crossing over arbitrary continental boundaries (3-2 vs
> 3-1).
> >>>
> >>> Would this rule change be an affront to anyone's sense of good
> >>> sportsmanship and fair play?
> >>>
> >>> 73 Bob
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Edmonds
> PK Ministry Webs
> 864.288.6678
> dave@pkministrywebs.com
> www.pkministrywebs.com
> "Webs from the Heart"
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|