[CQ-Contest] Evolving scoring systems

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I am not attempting to solve any issues with a particular contest.  My 
scoring comments then emphasized by by Mark, are being suggested as a 
means to sell radio contesting to a huge group of younger people who 
love to compete using computers playing online games.

Aren't the amount of logs being sent in a function of the internet 
reaching almost every location on the planet?  Participation should be 
up too as I think we have more amateurs in the world than we ever had.

Making scoring more interesting or dangling carrots in front of 
participants has been a proven method in online gaming.  See the series 
of articles recently published in NCJ.  We can't fix the age problem 
unless we can interest younger people.

Mike W0MU

On 12/1/2013 4:19 PM, K1AR at aol.com wrote:
> Good evening all,
>   
> As I type and note that we have received 15,578 logs in the CQWW contest (a
>   new record!), I have to ask the question: What problem are we trying to
> solve  with changed scoring systems? It seems to me that the *real* problem is
> that the  average age of a given contest operator submitting these logs is
> approaching 100 y.o. (round numbers) and not a need to create  new methods
> of calculating scores.
>   
> BTW, new contests with creative scoring methods is very cool. The Stew
> Perry is a great example of that.
>   
> Just another point-of-view...
>   
> 73, John, K1AR
>   
>   
>   
> In a message dated 12/1/2013 6:12:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> markzl3ab at gmail.com writes:
>
> Since we  are talking scoring systems and technology (albeit in  different
> threads)...
>
> I grew up with video games from their early  days (man I feel old).  These
> started out as arcade shoot'em up style  games with points per alien shot
> and bonus points for shooting mother ships  or the like, (sound familiar?).
> However with the advent of PC gaming  strategy games appeared whereby you
> got points not only for killing aliens  but bonus points for finding hidden
> passages or bigger weapons ("Doom" is a  great example).  This soon morphed
> into games like "Civilisation" (or  nowadays "Minecraft") where you built
> communities and had make decisions  around what technologies you developed
> and alliances you built.   Mission based games also appeared meaning you
> take the role of a character  with certain strengths and weaknesses and you
> try and complete a mission,  picking up new abilities along the way.  Points
> are given not only for  finishing the mission but also the manner in how you
> do it e.g. finding  gold or not killing innocent people along the way
> (Google "Assassin's  Creed" if you want an example, my son loves it).
>
> The point of all  this?  Contesting is still in the arcade phase.  Scoring
> systems  certainly in major contests, are basically all the same i.e. qso
> points and  multipliers (with a few exceptions like QTC points and the Stew
> Perry  distance scoring).  Tactically therefore little changes from  contest
> to contest just the stations you have to work to achieve it.   I accept that
> once upon a time keeping it simple was a necessity but with  technology now
> this has changed but it hasn't been embraced in a scoring  sense unlike in a
> station spotting sense.
>
> I think it is time for  contesting scoring systems to evolve so that it is
> more than simple arcade  style scoring is available.  I am not advocating
> more contests by the  way, heaven knows there are more than enough already,
> but it maybe a chance  for existing organisers to think outside the square
> to rejuvenate their  contest if it needs it and at the same time maybe
> attract a new breed of  contester to have a go.
>
> Really the possibilities are only limited by  your imagination.  One simple
> example may be to award bonus points for  working a certain number of
> stations during the contest like 250 then 500  then 1000 etc (which would
> keep people operating), or for working a  station(s) in your "black hole"
> e.g. JA from W1 so emphasising radio  skills.  The trick though (like it is
> for computer gaming and which  developers sweat over) is to make it
> reasonably achievable for all  participants all the while keeping it
> challenging as the contest  progresses.
>
> By the way some entry categories based on a combination of  power and
> aluminum in the air wouldn't hurt either.
>
> 73
> Mark  ZL3AB
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing  list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest