Hi Jim,
Do you really think distance-based scoring will lead to a change in
distribution of winning scores?
Even if you get more points for CA-EU contacts, would that be enough to
compensate for the fact a K1 is still going to work through many more layers
than you?
And aren't you still left with the same paucity of contacts - relative to the
numbers in EU - to your west and northwest?
And, will this compensate for the fact, California notwithstanding, you are
still going to hear and work much more and much farther DX than the best VE4
and VE5 stations?
I'm not necessarily arguing against the change, just sceptical it will actually
change anything, or will have a positive effect for all involved.
73, kelly, ve4xt
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 23, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
>
> I do NOT believe that NA to NA QSOs is the key to making CQWW more
> competitive. What IS needed is a significant change to the scoring model. As
> long is the model is tied to multipliers, then a lot more multipliers are
> needed in parts of the world where there are few, and/or where there is
> little ham activity.
>
>
> That said, I think the best scoring model is one that includes DISTANCE as a
> major component, something along the line of what N6TR did with Stew Perry.
> For those who don't know, the exchange is grid square, and the value of each
> QSO is directly related to distance. There is also a multiplier for YOUR
> power AND for the other station's power. SO -- a station who hears well
> (and/or who takes the time to dig out a QRP station) gets extra points for
> doing so.
>
> This distance-based component of scoring helps because it makes competitive
> stations WANT to work more remotely located stations, and also because those
> remotely get more points per QSO. The use of grid square as part of the
> exchange means that you have to actually copy something, rather than get the
> zone from the logging program.
>
> Also, we need to re-think what "DX" means in the context of a contest.
> Consider what my friend KU8E wrote --
>
>> On Fri,7/22/2016 7:44 AM, Jeff Clarke wrote:
>> Do you think it's really fair that a G can work a DL for QSO credit but I
>> can't work another US station for any points at all? I mean come on - EU
>> stations working other EU stations isn't DX. It's like Sweepstakes for them.
>> The guys that go to North Africa aren't any further away from EU than I am
>> from you in GA and they get 3 points per QSO for just about every contact.
>
> K6XX has competed in UA, and while not a competitor in WRTC-New England, had
> the opportunity to operate at a good station there during that contest. He
> observed that "it's a totally different contest from there." And Bob has a
> great station just up the road from me. In bar conversation, he observed that
> as bad as the scoring rules WERE tilted, it got even worse when multiplier
> points were added for HQ stations, again because there are so many more of
> them in/around the Atlantic basin.
>
> Bob has long observed at as long as JA, BY, and VK are single multipliers,
> then all countries within the European Union ought to be a single multiplier,
> and all countries within the UK ought to be a single multiplier. OR -- keep
> the existing EU multipliers and add multipliers for each JA prefecture and
> for each VK state. If either of these suggestions sound wildly unfair to
> you, NOW you know how stations who are NOT within 800 miles or so of the
> Atlantic Ocean feel.
>
>> On Fri,7/22/2016 6:03 PM, Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest wrote:
>> If Columbus had listened to all the skeptics we wouldn't even have CQWW,
>> would we.
>>
>> Allowing US stations to work other US stations, in addition to increasing
>> the pool of multipliers, creates additional incentives that beyond a doubt
>> will lead to more QSOs, higher scores, and (more importantly) more fun for
>> hams in disadvantaged locations. There is no speculation here.
>
> I also strongly disagree with my good friend Ward Silver, who says contests
> will never have a level playing field, so we must give up on it and be
> satisfied with regional write-ups. Contests CAN be made a LOT less biased to
> those in the populations centers and multiplier-rich regions IF those who
> have those advantages now are willing to give them up, and IF we are willing
> to devise scoring systems that allow stations outside of that region to at
> least be IN THE SAME CONTEST. (caps added for emphasis).
>
> Will everyone have the same chance of winning? Of course not, but scores
> between regions will be a lot closer, and operators who are now "in the game"
> are far more likely to play, which means more stations to work in parts of
> the world where they were less likely to do so with the existing rules.
>
> Second, I've placed high enough in several contests that I SHOULD have been
> acknowledged in the write-up, but it never seems to happen. Apparently those
> who do the writing never got the word. Rather, in QST this month, the
> write-up for ARRL DX CW spends three long paragraphs on the battle between
> superstations K3LR and W3LPL. Looking at the extended write-up on line, I
> don't see a single word about regional competitions, only line scores.
>
> Some statistics from ARRL DX CW: In top 10 single-op HP, four are west of the
> MS, and of those, only N9RV is west of the Rockies, N2IC is in the Rockies,
> and none are in CA, OR, or WA. For LP, three stations are west of the MS,
> only K2PO (OR) is west of the Rockies. For HP Unlimited, none of the top ten
> is west of the MS, for LP Unlimited, only W0UO is west of the MS. For M/S HP,
> only K5UA is west of the MS, and only by 50 miles or so. For M/S LP, M/2,
> only N0NI is west of the MS (IA), and for M/M, only N6WM (at superstation
> N6RO), and they're last. For single band entries, KD5J (AR), N7DD (AZ),
> N7CW (AZ), N5FO (NM), and W6YX (another CA superstation) placed in the top
> ten of their respective bands. K6XX and N6TV, both WRTC competitors,
> operating SOHP from superstations, didn't even make the top ten.
>
> Totals -- out of 155 Top Ten listings of W/VE stations, only 17 (11%) were
> west of the MS, of those, 3 were west of the MS by less than about 150 miles,
> 5 were in MT/AZ/NM (3%) , and 3 were in CA/OR/WA. (2%). If this doesn't
> define a system that's broken, I don't know what does.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|