[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: k5go@cox.net, matt@nq6n.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposal MPMF Contest (more points more fun)
From: N2GC@aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 18:15:42 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
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.
Mike N2GC

In a message dated 7/1/2011 5:48:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
k5go@cox.net writes:

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

CQ-Contest mailing list

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