Please -- no more 5NN fake RSTs in the exchange! Just "EM00 1243"
should be an adequate exchange to demonstrate a contact occurred, and to
help in log checking.
The "field" part of a grid square -- the first two letters -- is pretty
large. For example, continental Europe includes all or part of IP
(rare!), JP, KP, LP, IO, JO, KO, LO, IN, JN, KN, IM, JM, and KM... a
total of 13 fields.
The continental USA (48 states) includes CN, DN, EN, FN, CM, DM, EM, FM,
and bits of DL and EL = 10 fields. One could pick up 4-5 more Canadian
fields, and a couple from central America/Caribbean.
South America (without the off-shore islands) has 15 fields.
Compared to a DXCC-entity approach to multipliers, a field approach
seems likely to result in somewhat fewer multipliers per band in a
contest. (100 fields would be a very good band multiplier total!) But,
after collecting the easy fields (as mults) on a particular band, people
will focus on bands where long-haul DX in volume racks up faster QSO
point values from more distant grid squares.
A bit higher QSO point value for the lower bands could be important to
keep people on those bands... rather than retreating to 20m with its
easier DX QSOs. So maybe one gooses up 40m QSO values by an extra
25%... 80m QSO point values by an extra 50%... and 160m by an extra
100%. Again, experimentation will help figure out which concepts are
fun and keep the competitors moving... and which are just dudes.
-- Eric K3NA
on 06 Oct 22 Sun 19:42 Jim George said the following:
> Eric, thanks for the idea of using the grid square locator info both
> as a distance calculator and also providing the "geographic zone" as a
> Mult! Some thought would be required to determine if an individual
> grid square, or a combination of more than one, would be the optimum
> "Zone" area for a Zone Mult. In addition, I like the idea of a serial
> number as part of the exchange. That provides some "real time"
> feedback. I like these a lot. This would make the exchange more of a
> challenge to copy (5NN EM00 #1234), provide real time feedback, and
> level the playing field world-wide. For me, these are important, and
> if a sponsoring group got behind the concept, it could become a
> terrific contest, the best indicator of operator skill regardless of
> location.
>
Others have recommended increased points for LF work, like the WPX does
for the three LF bands. That might indeed encourage activity on those
bands. However this is needed in the WPX since there is no incentive to
operate these bands since the Prefixes are the mults. In this proposed
concept, the incentive to operate the LF bands would be that there are
the "zone mults" on each of these. Therefore I would *not* think that
increased points on the LF bands would be a good idea.
>
> Jim George N3BB
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|