It was almost a year ago, we all were discussing this distance based
scoring. ( November of 2015 ) And many brought up that it has pitfalls
also because of propagation etc.
I back then proposed a contest that is based also on distance, but also
on the level of difficulty it takes to make a QSO of "X" distance on a
certain band. I posted it, and If I remember correctly not a single
comment was made, GOOD OR BAD, it as just as if I never made the posting
at all. So, lets try it again, What does anyone think of this layout
for an as flat as possible level playing field contest?
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
Thoughts? The QSO points are generated by the difficulty. Like making a
QSO on 15 with your own square is tough unless you have a ground wave
friend. or strong backscatter. So it should be valued more points than a
QSO on 15 5000 miles away.
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 7/24/2016 3:37 PM, john@kk9a.com wrote:
There are different areas were a station can be competitive in Sweepstakes
but certainly not all areas. Do you think it was fair when you lived in
Chicago? The west coast has more daylight hours, which are a high band
advantage and the contest ends at a more reasonable time there for those
that work on Monday. You can see the pattern if you look at the list of HP
phone winners over the last 20 years. 1995 N5RZ, 1996 N7TR, 1997 WP2Z,
1998-2007 WP3R, 2008 W7WA, 2009 KH7XS, 2010 VY2ZM, 2011 N9RV/7, 2012-2013
VY2ZM, 2014-2015 W7WA.
There really is no fair contest so just have fun and operate!
John KK9A
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW madness
From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: k9yc@arrl.net
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 20:13:35 -0700
List-post:
<cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On Sat,7/23/2016 5:50 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
Why are we beating up the CQWW contest? SS and NAQP are not fair either.
Actually, SS and NAQP are relatively competitive between different parts of
NA. In SS, PVRC, SMC, and NCCC have each turned in wins in Large Club
competitons, and another half dozen or so smaller clubs have done will the
Medium and Small club competions. Indeed, it's been largely a matter of
motivation of members as to which club wins any given year.
Likewise, top NAQP and NA Sprint scores are spread around, and there's quite
healthy competition between teams. NCCC teams often place well in both
contests, even beating "ad hoc" teams of top operators all over NA.
IMO, the most unfair element of SS is the number of geographically small
sections with relatively little ham activity, most of them located where
they're easy to work on 80/75 from W1/2/3. I'm thinking of the four new VE3
sections, RI, and MAR sections. The only section comparable out west is SF;
things are better there since K6SRZ moved from Berkeley (EB) to wine country
(part of the SF section) when he retired several years ago.
_______________________________________________
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
|