Hi John.
Have you done sort of a market research to determine what would be the
impact of a distance based scoring system. (distant + other peculiarities,
like bands, geography etc).
I received emails from people that get on and don't simply send their logs
because they perceive the scoring system to be unfair for distant stations.
The number of logs keeps increasing because of several factors I believe,
one of them is the fact that management has changed and CQ Contests seem to
no longer be in the same detrimental status-quo they had been for so many
years.
Nonetheless, even when the management of the contest was really poor,
received logs kept increasing year after year. http://cqww.com/stats.htm
So, does the increased number of logs received mean the contest cannot be
improved and turned into something more close to what we call a competition?
What kind of competition it is for a station in HK to compete against a
station in D4? Certainly one could say, well, that's part of the
competition the way it is.
But it's a pretty weird way of competition if world top boxes remain, since
there is no weighing factor to make it even.
So you can either remove competition at a world level and only presents
results at a country or zone levels. Or you can create a few set of
algorithms to compensate geographic disparity.
This is just my opinion. Just another opinion of course.
Best.
Martin, LU5DX
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 8:19 PM, <K1AR@aol.com> wrote:
> Good evening all,
>
> As I type and note that we have received 15,578 logs in the CQWW contest (a
> new record!), I have to ask the question: What problem are we trying to
> solve with changed scoring systems? It seems to me that the *real*
> problem is
> that the average age of a given contest operator submitting these logs is
> approaching 100 y.o. (round numbers) and not a need to create new methods
> of calculating scores.
>
> BTW, new contests with creative scoring methods is very cool. The Stew
> Perry is a great example of that.
>
> Just another point-of-view...
>
> 73, John, K1AR
>
>
>
> In a message dated 12/1/2013 6:12:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> markzl3ab@gmail.com writes:
>
> Since we are talking scoring systems and technology (albeit in different
> threads)...
>
> I grew up with video games from their early days (man I feel old). These
> started out as arcade shoot'em up style games with points per alien shot
> and bonus points for shooting mother ships or the like, (sound familiar?).
> However with the advent of PC gaming strategy games appeared whereby you
> got points not only for killing aliens but bonus points for finding hidden
> passages or bigger weapons ("Doom" is a great example). This soon morphed
> into games like "Civilisation" (or nowadays "Minecraft") where you built
> communities and had make decisions around what technologies you developed
> and alliances you built. Mission based games also appeared meaning you
> take the role of a character with certain strengths and weaknesses and you
> try and complete a mission, picking up new abilities along the way.
> Points
> are given not only for finishing the mission but also the manner in how
> you
> do it e.g. finding gold or not killing innocent people along the way
> (Google "Assassin's Creed" if you want an example, my son loves it).
>
> The point of all this? Contesting is still in the arcade phase. Scoring
> systems certainly in major contests, are basically all the same i.e. qso
> points and multipliers (with a few exceptions like QTC points and the Stew
> Perry distance scoring). Tactically therefore little changes from
> contest
> to contest just the stations you have to work to achieve it. I accept
> that
> once upon a time keeping it simple was a necessity but with technology now
> this has changed but it hasn't been embraced in a scoring sense unlike in
> a
> station spotting sense.
>
> I think it is time for contesting scoring systems to evolve so that it is
> more than simple arcade style scoring is available. I am not advocating
> more contests by the way, heaven knows there are more than enough already,
> but it maybe a chance for existing organisers to think outside the square
> to rejuvenate their contest if it needs it and at the same time maybe
> attract a new breed of contester to have a go.
>
> Really the possibilities are only limited by your imagination. One simple
> example may be to award bonus points for working a certain number of
> stations during the contest like 250 then 500 then 1000 etc (which would
> keep people operating), or for working a station(s) in your "black hole"
> e.g. JA from W1 so emphasising radio skills. The trick though (like it is
> for computer gaming and which developers sweat over) is to make it
> reasonably achievable for all participants all the while keeping it
> challenging as the contest progresses.
>
> By the way some entry categories based on a combination of power and
> aluminum in the air wouldn't hurt either.
>
> 73
> Mark ZL3AB
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|