Tweak the CQ WW scoring rules ?
What about a complete re-write that would level the playing field for
everyone, because it should be noted that there are some people who
do not live in either North America or Europe !
Here is one idea:
Same country - 1 pt
Different country - 2 pts
Same continent - 1 pt
Adjoining continent - 2 pts
Non-adjoining continent - 4 pts
Or what about:
Same zone - 1 pt
Adjoining zone - 2 pts
Non-adjoining zone - 4 pts
(Yes W2/W6 qso = 2 pts, and
IG8 or EA8/zone14 or 15 = 1 pt, and also
the Caribbean island beach stations to zones 4 or 5 = 1pt)
Or real simple:
Same hemisphere - 1 pt
Different hemisphere - 2 pts
(north or south of equator)
And as for multipliers, what about :
Same continent = 0
Different continent = 1
or
Same continent = 1
Different continent = x2
But wait!, there's more.....which I haven't thought of yet :-))
73, Frank ZL4BR
-----Previous Message-----
On 29 Nov 2005 Gerard Lynch wrote:
> Er... not quite. They were readily workable at *1* point each. That's a
> big difference. Only North America benefits from the 2-point
> intra-continental rule.
>
> [Warning: Long rant follows]
>
> I can understand the logic of this given that W dominates North America in
> terms of contesting population in a way that no other does... even JA
> doesn't even come close within Asia. Or at least I can understand it for W
> stations - I can't understand why a VE or a C6 gets 2 points for working
> endless W stations next door, while I get 1 point for working DLs, or even
> more bizarrely a TA2 gets 1 point for working JAs half a world away.
>
> Of course, there is always going to be a huge advantage in being just the
> other side of a boundary... which is why, of course, EA8, CN, CT3 and IH9
> are such good contesting locations. 3 points and a gaggle of multipliers on
> your doorstep and still with easy access to North America. IH9 is simply
> the best location in the world for low band contesting, given the current
> points structure, with an endless supply of Europeans at 3 points a time,
> not to mention making easy meat of all the European multipliers.
>
> Well, there we are. That's life. Contesting can't be an absolutely fair
> sport, and those who win maximise their advantages within the rules and
> scoring framework. Sure, not everyone can travel to DX locations for a
> contest, but then again, some people live on the top of a mountain and
> others live in the bottom of a valley. A station on the Asian side of
> Istanbul gets 0 points for working a station 2000km away on the Iranian
> border, only 1 point for working a station at the Eastern tip of Siberia
> 8000km away on a difficult path, but 3 points for working a station on the
> other side of town who he can see from his shack window - maybe as little as
> 2km away. You could move the boundaries, you can change the points
> structure, you can try and make it as fair as possible but ultimately you'll
> still have people with big advantages from being just on the right side of a
> boundary.
>
> And you can't change the laws of physics... the biggest densities of contest
> activity are in Europe and Eastern North America. Someone stuck in the
> middle of the Pacific can't do anything about being on the wrong side of the
> pole and JA and W6 just don't make up the numbers. Similarly, someone in JW
> can't do much about being crippled by Aurora (did you notice the rough AC
> note JW1CCA had this weekend?) while somebody in HC or YB will have great
> high bands propagation in the middle of the night.
>
> Of course we could move to a points per kilometre scoring system like is
> used in Europe on VHF, with us all exchanging 6 character locators. But
> then there would still be big advantages in being in some places...
> specifically dead South, and a long way South, of as much of Europe and
> Eastern North America as possible. LUs would be unbeatable in that
> situation or maybe ZD8 would be the killer location. Maybe it would be
> somewhere else, I'm just musing out loud. But in any case, people would
> invest considerable time in effort in finding out where they could win from,
> just like they do at present.
>
> Now, all this applies to CQ WW... now that USA stations (rightly) get a
> point for working each other in WPX I don't see the need for the double
> points bonus within North America in that contest. Let's change *that* rule
> before we start tackling the more robust CQWW structure. (Let the flames
> begin).
>
> 73
>
> Gerry G0RTN
> Vanity Page at http://www.gerrylynch.co.uk
> "In days of old, when ops were bold, and sidebands not invented,
> The word would pass, by pounding brass, and all were well contented."
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|