CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Distance-Based Ranking

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Distance-Based Ranking
From: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:53:44 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I have a test all set and ready to go, just need a sponsor he he he.

Multipliers are maidenhead grid squares, IE: EN43
Mults are good for each band to encourage the use of every band. IE: you get a mult for each square on each band.

QSO Points, more or less the value is determined by the level of difficulty in the average qso.

ON 160, 80, & 40,
1 point for each qso in your own grid square
2 points for each qso not in your own grid square but in a square that touches your own grid square.
3 points for all other squares

ON 20, 15 & 10,
3 points for each qso in your own grid square
2 points for each qso not in your own grid square but in a square that touches your own grid square.
1 point for all other squares
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 11/10/2015 10:24 PM, Michael Adams wrote:
FWIW, an idea that has floated around the back of my mind is some kind of 
matrix-based scoring, where points for a Q vary by (your zone), (other zone), 
(band) based on some kind of degree of difficulty, as measured by prior years' 
logs, and perhaps allowing for such mechanics as the same Q having different 
point values for the stations involved.

Zone 14 to zone 15 on 20 or 40m?  That's 1 point.
Zone 1 to zone 39 on 160m?  That's 100 points.

It still wouldn't be a level playing field, for reasons that have been 
discussed previously, ad nauseam.  But it could be a variation that could lead 
to some interesting strategic considerations.



_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>