[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposal MPMF Contest (more points more fun)

To: Matt Murphy <matt@nq6n.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposal MPMF Contest (more points more fun)
From: Stan Stockton <k5go@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 15:46:45 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
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.

73...Stan, K5GO

Sent from Stan's IPhone

On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Matt Murphy <matt@nq6n.com> wrote:

> It's been fascinating to read everyone's thoughts on distance-based  
> scoring,
> fairness, etc.  I would love to see the creation of one or more new  
> and
> experimental contests through which we could explore different sorts  
> of
> rules and scoring mechanisms.
> Yesterday I went to a talk by one of the founders of Electronic Arts  
> (a
> 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  
> designed
> 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  
> through
> "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  
> loophole
> 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/ 
> hour
> run was really the best strategic option?  What if more points could  
> be
> 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  
> the
> 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.   
> The
> 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  
> characteristics
> (the overall approach being more points equals more fun):
> - Dupe tally resets halfway through -- stations may work each other  
> again
> 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  
> worked
> on.  Get 1 point the first time you work a station, then 2 for the  
> second
> 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  
> congestion
> 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  
> to
> 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  
> an
> extra point awarded if the next QSO is not on the same frequency as  
> the
> last.
> - The last rule I'd propose would be a power limit of 500W.  I think  
> this
> 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  
> certainty
> 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@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>