[PaQSO] Rovers vs. Mobiles

[Michael Coslo]

Thanks for all the input, folks. I try to not influence things one way or the other, but want to have some input on this important Rover and Mobile issue. 

When I look at modifying classes, I need to try to see all of the unintended consequences that can happen.

It’s why we went to the mobile-multi and mobile single. The singles, just about universally operate stopped, so they do not cover as many counties as those who have a driver. So while I’m not always worried about the “playing field”, there was just a huge disparity between the two modes of operation.

But what I have to do is take an idea, and then think of all the ways I can fail the idea. Some times it seems like pessimism, but in reality, it’s just trying to be certain I don’t gum up the works.

There’s a dilemma with trying to have rovers operate as mobiles between stations. It’s no secret that there aren’t all that many people who operate rover. It’s a class that takes a lot of effort.

But I’ve looked long and hard at the idea of allowing rovers to operate as mobiles between stationary locations, and it has one big problem - it can be gamed, and gamed heavily. 

I could have my first location set up as a rover, stationary antenna and all, say in Chester County. I could make contacts from there, and then start moving to my next stationary location. In Erie County. And I hit Erie County on Sunday afternoon. And I have operated in 20 counties in between on Saturday and Sunday. Operating perfectly within the rules.

And there lies the problem with blurring the distinction between the Rovers and mobiles. The two classes become almost indistinguishable. The station gaming the system ends up with an immense advantage over the station that operates with mostly fixed antennas - which after all, is the reason why there is a rover class. Better signal, although at the expense of mobility. Likely more QSO’s, with less bonus points. That’s the concept.

Anyhow, I do thank everyone for their suggestions, and encourage more suggestions.  As usual I can’t implement all of them, because not all suggestions are compatible with each other, and I have to take everyone into consideration.  But I do listen, and if something can work, we might just use it.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

> On Sep 28, 2015, at 10:08 AM, n2cu at roadrunner.com wrote:
> 
> Traditionally, a rover sets up at a location, operates, and then tears down the setup for the move to the next county. Technically, there is no tear down if you operate during the move. I'm not trying to diminish the fun factor for any rovers, but what about the single-op rover who can't operate while moving to the next location? he now has a diminished chance of winning the category because he has no driver. Keeping the rover rules the way it is levels the field. Just sayin'.