[CQ-Contest] 2 point rule

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Interesting point about bonus points. Online games specifically 1st 
shooters give bonuses for all sorts of actions in game.

How about  a bonus for working 10, 100,1000 F stations.  A bonus for 
working 10 F stations on 5 bands or 6 bands.  A bonus for working 10 
stations over X distance away.  I am sure there are tons of other fun 
and meaningful bonuses that just are not popping in my head at the moment.

This type of scoring could created a whole new realm of strategy. I 
doubt it would ever be adopted to the big contests but who knows.

Mike W0MU

On 11/29/2013 8:30 AM, Rudy Bakalov wrote:
> Randy,
> The survey excluded demographics data and therefore we simply don't know if it polled the right people. Ditto for the members of the CQ Contest reflector- chances are most of them have the incentive of keeping the current rules.  But frankly, the reason we may want to change the rules of CQ WW is to
> make it more fun, exciting, and challenging for all. Give it a fresh
> identity to stand out from other contests.
>
> Adding the the Classic category is a good example of adding a challenge to the contest. Yes, challenge- picking a winning strategy for maximizing the 24 hour operating time. Personally, I'd like to see it increased to 36 hours, but 24 is just fine as is.
>
> Moving to distance-based scoring is another good possibility enabled by the prevalent use of computer logging.  Add the grid square to the exchange and you get not only the data to calculate distance, but also the added challenge of receiving an unique piece of information (instead of the generic CQ Zone).
>
> How about borrowing ideas from other games? For example, add points (current scoring model) or bonus distance (distance based scoring) for working the same station on more than one band.
>
>
> The point here is that there are opportunities to improve the contest, not just tweak old rules that no longer serve the purpose from the past.
>
> Rudy N2WQ
>
>
> ________________________________
>   From: Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd at charter.net>
> To: 'Bob Kupps' <n6bk at yahoo.com>; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule
>   
>
> Attempts to introduce scoring changes for other areas of the world was
> included as a question topic in the 2013 CQ WW participant survey.  Review
> the voting results and the comments in the pdf file at
> http://cqww.com/blog/?p=150
>
> The first level challenge is to define the problem (or even if there is
> one).  Then to define what the scoring should optimize.  Only then can you
> rationally discuss the options.
>
> Maintaining the status quo is strong with reflector readers.
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Bob Kupps
>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 12:22 AM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule
>>
>> Hi and thanks for all the comments.
>>
>> I am persuaded by the arguments in favor of retaining the 2 point rule
>> for NA. In fact those arguments apply to other continents as well and IMO
>> applying the 2 point rule equally across the globe for all intra-
>> continental Qs would seem to go a long way toward reducing by half the
>> penalty for crossing over arbitrary continental boundaries (3-2 vs 3-1).
>>
>> Would this rule change be an affront to anyone's sense of good
>> sportsmanship and fair play?
>>
>> 73 Bob
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest