--- "Hoffman, Mark" <mhoffman@microwavedata.com>
wrote:
> I suppose a distance scoring element is worth
> considering, BUT:
>
> If we're trying to encourage folks to play, then
> that's yet another
> discouraging factor. This stacks the decks in favor
> of the "big guns", since
> those big stations have big stuff that can make the
> most of the big distance
> points.
Marginally true, but you must consider that most of
the beneficiaries of such a scheme would be smaller
stations who work the big guns over a great distances.
After all the big guns already work each other anyhow.
Also consider that a distance based scoring element
puts more emphasis on working multiple long distance
stations, vs only the "easy" and loud ones. Often ops
will seek only the loudest from distant grids for a
new mult and then tend to not try as hard for any
additional Q's from that same distant grid, this
especially true of casual operators. For anyone who
lives in the stix like me it is very frustration to
hear so many very workable stations in the urban
centers who cluster together (often on or very near
calling freqs - but then that's another topic) and
then never real try to work many of us guys out in the
weeds.
If the emphasis is on creating parity in
> scoring nationally - then
> its another story.
Arguably it is more of a way to seek parity between
high station populations vs. sparse with the different
regions of the country. But more importantly it is an
added incentive to push the weak signal limits of the
station equipment and operator skill, that in turn
drives the desire to build bigger, better stations and
add bands. Rovers and QRP/portable ops will benefit
more as well.
> That said, population density still determines
> scoring. Distance may even it
> some, but the quantities of people to work still
> plays an important role in
> beefing up a score. F'rinstance, guys in the Central
> US work both coasts on
> 6m via Es. Now that's big points + Big QSOs. BUT-
> if I work a double-hop
> opening to the west coast, that's bigger points per
> QSO. And I still have
> the advantage of large #s of QSOs available. In this
> model, I can't see
> distance scoring making a huge difference. Mebbe I'm
> wrong.
Very valid points, 6M is the most problematic band for
introducing/using distance based scoring elements, E
and F2 propagation tend to be equalizers within any
given region of the country - if present. But on the
other hand if the 6M band never opens during the
contest then distance scoring would have more merit,
it's those 6M station's between 150 - 400 miles that
are often the toughest ones to work and are typically
the weakest.
In the end it is the higher bands where distance based
scoring makes the most sense, it is unfortunate that
3Q's from the far Eastern edge to the far Western edge
of the same grid effectively nets less total point
value than 3 Q's to different grids for a station near
a grid corner.
Distance based scoring could be based on 6 digit grid
squares (6 digit grids adds ~50% to exchange
difficulty level = more challenge) since they are
quite easy for fixed stations to determine. The
biggest problem with 6 digit grids though would be for
the rovers, it would add considerable burden to their
operating activities which are already quite harsh.
Just some thoughts...
Duane
N9DG
EN53bj
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
|