Very interesting! The most creative post I have seen. If anyone were
to sponsor a new, major contest, I think some of your ideas should be
Someone in a previous post mentioned a category for S&P only. Think
it was W5GN, perhaps. In your new contest, a progressive points
system for back to back to back, etc. S&P QSO's would be interesting.
This would definitely result in more strategy and innovation.
Sent from Stan's IPhone
On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Matt Murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It's been fascinating to read everyone's thoughts on distance-based
> fairness, etc. I would love to see the creation of one or more new
> experimental contests through which we could explore different sorts
> rules and scoring mechanisms.
> Yesterday I went to a talk by one of the founders of Electronic Arts
> video game company). He mentioned one thing about game design that
> I found
> particularly applicable to the discussion of contest rules and
> fairness. He
> said: "The ideal game has multiple paths to victory". Games are
> this way to make them more fun. In most contests there is one
> primary way
> to win: build a big station capable of scoring a lot of points
> "running" lots of other stations. One can also go to the Caribbean
> and use
> a smaller station and still win using the same rate-oriented strategy.
> SO2R came about as a strategic enhancement that allowed smaller
> stations to
> achieve superior rate than their antennas and propagation alone
> would have
> allowed with only one radio. The early innovators in SO2R found a
> and used their skills to win using this method. Nobody can deny that
> a SO2R
> takes great skill and so we respect ops who win this way.
> What if we created a contest with rules that made the operator of a
> big gun
> station have to think carefully about whether continuing with a 250q/
> run was really the best strategic option? What if more points could
> gained by maximizing other aspects of station performance or
> operator skill?
> In my opinion, it would be incredible if we could create a contest
> with a
> set of rules that allowed for winning strategies other than simple
> rate-maximization. This might have the side-effect of revealing that
> different station arrangements, geographies, and operator skills had
> unexpected strengths. If this could be done in a way that preserved
> most FUN aspects of contesting, then the contest would likely draw
> significant participation quickly become a favorite.
> According to this guy from EA, the most successful games are not
> stingy in
> giving out points -- you can earn points for doing nearly anything.
> overall goal being to create certain behaviors in the players that
> make the
> overall game more fun for everyone.
> Imagine if we had a contest that had some of the following
> (the overall approach being more points equals more fun):
> - Dupe tally resets halfway through -- stations may work each other
> the second day of the contest (this keeps rate high for everyone)
> - A QSO is worth an extra point for each band the other station is
> on. Get 1 point the first time you work a station, then 2 for the
> band, 3 for the third band, etc. This would encourage stations to
> use bands
> that may not have the best propagation, which would cut down on
> at the bottom of the "hot" band.
> - Use the number of unique callsigns in the log as a multiplier (an
> incentive to work new stations)
> - Also use a traditional multiplier (ARRL sections, countries, etc.)
> but use
> the natural log of the total countries/sections. This preserves the
> incentive to work mults, but doesn't offer as much of an advantage to
> stations in highly mult-dense locations.
> - Perhaps also use grid squares as a multiplier. Why not. More ways
> score points means more FUN and more possible winning strategies.
> - It might also be fun to have some sort of QSY rule, or maybe award
> extra point awarded if the next QSO is not on the same frequency as
> - The last rule I'd propose would be a power limit of 500W. I think
> would cut down on band crowding, splatter, and would allow everyone to
> better hear the weak signals on the band.
> I'm curious if anyone else thinks this sort of contest would be
> fun. I
> think it's pretty hard to consider these rules and predict with
> who would win... But whoever the winner was, I think all
> participants would
> have fun and a win would appear to be the result of operator skill and
> station optimization, which is (I think) the point of contesting.
> Matt, NQ6N
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list