[CQ-Contest] CQWW madness

[Joe]

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 at 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 at contesting.com
> Subject:	Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW madness
> From:	Jim Brown <k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Reply-to:	k9yc at arrl.net
> Date:	Sat, 23 Jul 2016 20:13:35 -0700
> List-post:
> <cq-contest at contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest at 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 at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>