Just to clarify, my suggestion was not intended to be a recommendation for
changing the rules of any existing contest. The scores, score records, and
strategies are fun and relatively stable and changing them is not necessary.
However, the way we earn points in a contest strongly influences contest
strategy. With the typical scoring systems, it's fairly predictable where
each stations' yagis will be pointed at various hours of the contest. It's
also quite predictable that most of the points will come from running, and
that the winners will be the ones who are able to get the most hard-to-work
mults.
So, like an ultralight glider, the trajectory of the contest and score is
fairly predictable and stable by design. In spite of RF being indifferent,
some areas of the world are known as the "black hole", etc.
What I'd like to see is a contest where the rules made the trajectory much
less stable, more like a fighter plane which is designed with aerodynamics
that allow small rudder movements to result in very agile maneuvers.
What if it were not obvious whether one should be running 120/hour or doing
S&P on a band with inferior propagation? What if it were not obvious
whether an east coast station should beam toward EU during an opening or
toward the west coast of the US? What if it were not clear whether one
would be more or less likely to win running legal limit or 300W?
Communications is about path optimization, and I think contest rules tend
to reward the over-optimization of some paths and the near disregard of
others.
The kinds of things that make this difficult are fairly significant
differences in population density in different regions, and the benefits of
salt water to radio wave propagation. This two factors make linear scoring
fall short, but are easily minimized using exponential (or logarithmic)
scoring.
In the spirit of the magical aspect of radio wave propagation, I think it
would be fun to consider a rule system that led to an unstable strategic
landscape and that allowed various operating techniques and station
configurations to flourish. Being unstable doesn't mean it would be less
fun, it just means that depending on conditions, we might have to draw upon
a wider variety of operating skills and propagation knowledge than is
usually demanded of us, and various station configurations (or station
flexibility) might turn out to be a bigger advantage than location. The
ideal system would be relatively insensitive to a big advantage in any
single dimension.
While I realize that some people wish that the existing rules were changed,
I think that it's preferable to add new contests or perhaps overlay scoring
/ leaderboards to test new ideas for scoring systems. Though since scoring
impacts strategy it's not too useful to backtest past logs on a novel
scoring system.
73,
Matt NQ6N
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:23 AM, <n1ix@n1ix.com> wrote:
> I agree! I operate QRP in CQWW and ARRL DX CW contests. I can almost never
> can get a run going in the CQWW contest. I am sure that DX stations skip
> over me because they don't want to spend the time digging me out of the
> noise. I think if the DX station suspected that I was QRP and was worth
> extra points he might have more incentive.
>
> BTW I'm NOT going to send /QRP after my callsign!
> 73
> Dave, N1IX
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> W5GN
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 3:38 PM
> To: 'Matt Murphy'; k9yc@arrl.net
> Cc: 'cq-contest'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Distance-Based Ranking
>
> If we are going to change scoring, I think working a QRP station should be
> worth 3 points TO THE RECEIVING STATION, not to the TRANSMITTING STATION,
> and 2 points for RECEIVING a LOW POWER station.
>
> 73
>
> Barry, W5GN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Matt Murphy
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:16 PM
> To: k9yc@arrl.net
> Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Distance-Based Ranking
>
> I propose something like the following approach to calculating QSO points:
>
> 1) One point for every grid square traversed by the signal (the shortest
> path between the two stations).
> 2) Add a point for each of the above grids that are at least 80% covered by
> land.
> 3) Square the result.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue,11/10/2015 3:15 PM, Ward Silver wrote:
> >
> >> Distance-based scoring really won't work for bands on which there is
> >> a skip zone.
> >>
> >
> > Horse-pucky! Scoring rules determine who wants to work whom. For
> > stations in Zones 3, 11, 12, 13, 29, 30 to have fun in a DX contest,
> > there must be a real desire for other stations to work them. Those
> > zones are remote from population centers, and for the most part,
> > there's only 2-3 countries in a zone. VK is a continent larger than
> > EU, yet only one country multiplier and two zone mults. EU is much
> > smaller than South America, but EU has 5X the country multipliers.
> >
> > Distances DO matter on bands with skip zones. I cited examples in an
> > earlier post. Stations and power being equal, I can work a LOT more
> > mults on more bands in IARU, CQ, and ARRL DX contests from W1 than I
> > can
> from W6.
> >
> > We need FAR more than "ranking" by zone or geographical area. We need
> > a system where an operator in all but the most remote parts of the
> > world is at least in the same contest with those in the Atlantic
> > basin, and where his final score is determined by comparison with his
> > geographic peers. It IS possible to design scoring rules that achieve
> > this. It's like the US Congress -- we simply need the WILL to do it.
> >
> > 73, Jim K9YC
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|