Whatever the team theme/rules, all on-the-air behavior and all submitted
QSO data must to comply with the sponsor's contest rules for the
exchange and so forth. Messing up the sponsor's processes would be a
Bad Thing and very unwelcome.
Perhaps a self-assigned identifier following the call that complies with
all regulations about prefixes would serve to identify the team without
corrupting the sponsor's scoring and checking process. For example,
maybe add /T### that would be ignored by the prefix-parsing software in
favor of the initial prefix (kind of like /P is ignored). ### would be
a three-digit team ID, maybe.
Scoring could be done on a post-processing basis from the verified logs
but the sponsor would not be responsible for judging the CWAC (contest
within a contest).
If the operation violates some criteria such as the
all-equipment-within-a-certain-radius rule, logs should be submitted as
checklogs.
> What a strategy fest this would be!
Exactly. Like adding another dimension to the chess board.
73, Ward N0AX
On 12/6/2013 8:41 AM, Gerry Hull wrote:
Like the theme, Ward...
How about this as an outside-the-box simple example of a new contest:
-Form inter-continental virtual teams
-intra-team QSOs count zero points
-rest of scoring matches a current contest type (like Zn/Cty)
-Exchange would include a team acronym to conform to rules.
What a strategy fest this would be! First, finding the proper
team members on each continent; which team combinations
would work best based on propagation, etc. Each continent
has it's own advantages based on TOD and population centers;
This could work well if teams were made up of stations in the same
category.
Food for thought.
73, Gerry W1VE
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com
<mailto:hwardsil@gmail.com>> wrote:
Opening up the team competition to be more than just combining
scores would be very interesting. The software to allow multiple
stations to interact as a "distributed multi-multi" already
exists. Remote multi-operator stations are already
straightforward, if not easy, as the K4VV team has demonstrated.
So the idea of multiple operators using multiple stations is
certainly do-able, although with the demise of the WW X-treme
category, such operation does not have a "home" in any major
contest at the moment.
Here are some possible team scenarios:
1) Multiple operators using one station via remote links, ala K4VV.
2) Multiple independent stations networked together for logging,
ala many IARU HQ operations
3) Multiple stations with a single operator using remote control
and networked together
3a) All stations are single-band throughout the contest
3b) All stations are multi-band but the team is limited to one
signal per band
3c) Combination of single- and multi-band stations plus
multiplier stations
4) Receive-only stations added in "partner mode" over the network
to support transmitting station
I'm sure this inventive audience will think of many more ways to
combine multiple operators and multiple stations :-) Deciding on
strategies would be challenging - do you optimize by station
capability, by operator capability, how do you allocate time slots
between operators and stations, etc etc etc. I mean, really,
we've been playing essentially the same game for upwards of 80
years. Surely there are other useful ways of competing.
On the second question - why don't we ask them? I completely
agree that what they come up with would be unlikely to look all
that familiar but it would probably be fun. As long as the
resulting activity advances radio know-how and operating skill,
why not?
73, Ward N0AX
On 12/3/2013 11:00 AM, cq-contest-request@contesting.com
<mailto:cq-contest-request@contesting.com> wrote:
> Or thinking of a team situation, what if you were in a team
of six, one on
>each continent, in say a 24 hour contest using traditional
scoring but you
>could only operate 4 hours each. Using instant messaging or
voice chat to
>co-ordinate your plans, what tactics would you employ? Would
that be fun
>to try? Who knows you may even make new friends.
>
> (snip)
>
>Finally as someone else said how would a bunch of gamers
design a radio
>contest? I suspect quite differently to what we have now.
>
>73
>Mark ZL3AB
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto: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
|