I too would adopt the Maidenhead square grid exchange.
The final points score could simply be determined by the total number
of kilometres worked - no radial ring points scoring and no country
If there had to be a multiplier I would use the Maidenhead large
square - that would encourage not only dxpeditions to rarer DXCC but
also activity in some rarer squares within more active countries - and
there are a great many worldwide; with these multipliers the final
score would be pretty big so it could then be divided by 100 or 1000 to
make it more managable to tabulate and list.
Just my thoughts to add to the pot.
>For the 2010 edition of CQ 160 contest, I propose the following
>changes as followons to the 2009 changes:
>1. Make the exchange 59(9) grid where "grid" is 4 character
>Maidenhead grid square, a-la the Stew Perry test.
>2. Make the QSO point scoring proportional to distance. You could
>take the Stew Perry scheme and scale it so that the longest possible
>QSO is 10 (or maybe 12) points.
>3. Keep multipliers to encourage DXpeditions and pile-ups.
>The slightly more difficult exchange should be compensated roughly by
>slightly inflated scores if the scoring is 1 point per 4000 km. Or,
>Let the flaming begin.
>Topband mailing list
50% off Norton Security 2009 - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/security
CQ-Contest mailing list