Nice to see someone thinking outside the box on this subject. (most qso's X
most mults = winner)
I think a contest with most of your ideas would be very interesting and a
lot of fun.
Before creating a new contest, how about using beta testers at different
locations around the world operate an existing contest like IARU or WPX
(everyone can work everyone) using software and strategy of the new proposed
rules and scoring.
As far as ARRL DX is concerned. I think mults for DX stations should be
changed to ARRL sections. This would add more of a challenge for them. It
would be more challenging for an EU station that had to work all the
sections in CA rather than just one station for the state mult. This might
them to stay on a particular band longer when there is prop to the west
coast in order to work all the sections. Stations on the west coast and in
between may benefit from the EU station being on that particular band longer
when rate may be better on a different band that maybe didn't have any
prop to the west coast.
In a message dated 7/1/2011 5:48:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
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 <email@example.com> 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
CQ-Contest mailing list