Win or lose I play fair. IWTs since I got these chips. One of these days I'll add the Vcore mod to the PC-DL and try some benches at 3.5. This pair I plan to add to my collection.Quote:
Originally Posted by riptide
DDTUNG:cool:
Printable View
Win or lose I play fair. IWTs since I got these chips. One of these days I'll add the Vcore mod to the PC-DL and try some benches at 3.5. This pair I plan to add to my collection.Quote:
Originally Posted by riptide
DDTUNG:cool:
:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by DDTUNG
We are aware that credit system changes should not be done lightly. There was just no way for us to make the first boints system final as we were approaching unknown territory there. We have been openly saying all the time that changes are possibly coming. One manifestation of this can be seen right here as we are still a long way from the actual change. And rev2 will at least try to be final. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DDTUNG
Gotta admit that here lies the worst downside of rev2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
(Please all note however that in no way those falling out the top40 are removed from anywhere else other than when counting the team's total score. Those users should find the new system much more rewarding for the individual competition. No more frequent 0-bointers like with the current system.)
But i don't think we'll go a different route unless somebody comes up with a constructive proposal to define the (team) competition such that
i) getting new members doesn't hurt the team's overall score and thus make new members unwanted (this is an absolute must)
ii) all the team members can contribute to the team's score
iii) reasonably sized benching teams can possibly compete for the top positions
iv) the system stays (like in rev2) such that it motivates new users and rewards for trying
v) logically and computationally feasible
Impossible to get them all. :fact:
There are also limits to how far the dc analogy can be taken. Team benching is a different game (we are pretty much defining it here :)). We could almost as well compare it to soccer. Wouldn't exactly be reasonable to let the teams put every possible player they can recruit to the field at the same time. :D
@HeavyH20, thanks for understanding :)
It´s up to hwbot to decide if they want a team competition rewarding the best team or the biggest team. The actual system does reward indeed the biggest team... If the idea is to reward the best team than rules must be changed....
The idea of limiting the number of "players" per team seems to be the right way... remember all team sports that reward individuals as well (like athletics) limits the number of "players" that count for the team competition... although there are more competing...
In collective sports all teams have limited number of players as well...
In teams with a big number of members, one solution could be the creation of "B" teams with the "remaining" members that are not part of best "n" players. This would encourage internal competition and benching as well to go from B to A team...
We could have teams like XS A, XS B, OCX A, OCX B, etc......
Just my 2 cents
Sorry for my English
Continuing the soccer anology, we could build up some sort of competition with different leagues (division 1, division 2 ...) so the top 5 wouldn't be XS A, OCX A, XS B, OCX B, XS C.Quote:
Originally Posted by ojdr2001
Every month/three months/year, two teams will change to a lower division and two teams will raise to a higher division, based on some statics (no clue, what's best: overal points or points gathered in that month/...).
We now have 223 teams, let's say 100 pretty active (+11 points). We could easily divide the teams into:
Division 1: 1-10
Division 2: 10-20
Division 3: 20-30
...
Division 10: 90-100.
The rest of the teams are in one division, e.g. Promotion.
Sorry but we are once again going too far with an analogy imo. There are good reasons for the divisions in football, it's not really fun for anyone when the best teams have to play with the worst (no time for it either). This division into leagues would be very artificial and unnecessary for this benching competition imho. In this benching competition there is not much trouble putting all the teams on the same track. I would much rather see OCTF taking the 11. place fare and square (in the half-year competitions) than bouncing back and forth between the first two divisions, even if that would mean "winning" a division every now and then. That "winning" would just feel so artificial.
Try to make it less artificial. History charts with a lot of stats like best scoring user ... would help a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtzki
I would be much harder to implent, but in the end maybe more interesting. The gaming world has evolved to this kind of competition (e.g. WCG), why can't we try to let the benching world evolve to something similar.
This ain't an fps game either. :p:
Seriously, gotta have a reasonable and well-defined foundation to build on.
This isn't gaming either ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mtzki
I know it would be difficult to build up in a way everyone is happy, but I think it's worth it. If we can create a more open community than it is now (face it, gaming is much more open than benching, which is more expensive), we can attract more people.
It is absolutely impossible. Believe me. Please let's continue this discussion at the bot forum if you want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
I think changes from the current to what has been discussed would be a mistake for the reasons I mentioned before.
If a team has 40 or 400 members shouldn't be a factor and shouldn't be a reason to cry foul.
In DC the next team that we are trying to catch in WCG has over 5000 members..We have at best 200 but we will catch them.
That's what is being missed here. You tighten your belt, you fire up all you have and get everything you can out of it and you go for it!
Determination and perserverance can overcome numbers!
Another point: at one time this team was 60+ guys..We PM'd people and made it grow. We didn't whine because we were smaller.
Don't take this the wrong way but this sounds to me like " If you can't beat them, change the rules so that you can."
DDTUNG had a good line above: "Win or lose I play fair"
Summs up how I feel. I want the same shot as everyone else and win or lose I know I did my best.
All the single rankings have always worked with a top 10 rule. It hasn't ever caused much controversy. There are no teams with 10 benchers that can conquer those. The top 40 rule really doesn't make the rest of the team useless. That group of 40 won't be static for XS. Those guys left out one hour can make it there the next. Having great players sitting on the bench makes those guys at the field work harder too trying to maintain their position at the team.
I disagree totally. By what I have read using that new proposed system with just the top 40 people being on the team scores my scores wouldn't be allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtzki
By doing this you have just said to me personally that I am not allowed to contribute to the XS team.
Am I correct in that statement?
Kinda, but you make it sound much worse than it is imo. Your scores would be and remain there and you would have your individual positions in the rankings. So nothing taken away from you. You would also get boints somewhat easier by benching for them (rev2 rewards better for trying). However, your boints wouldn't be counted for XS total score unless you are in its top 40 overall (you are there now by a clear margin i reckon).
See, thats the issue, I did this for the team, not for myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtzki
Anyone that knows me can tell you that I'm not a bencher but I am for XS in every way. This would say to me:" Sorry, this is only for the big guys only and to make the team competitions closer."
Don't take this personal, but if you guys make this change, I think you will regret it unless your just trying to have the top people and the hell with the rest. If that is the case, I feel like someone just spit in my face.
What's illogical or difficult about awarding more points for the top aircooled scores? Or are you telling every team to go out and get 40 sets of supercoolers if they want to compete effectively?
I'll say this again: equipment does not equal skill.
DDTUNG:cool:
I think I'll be the one to say what no one else is:
The comments here are based on which team you are currently on.
yes, that simple. The people on smaller teams see that there are many more people on the XS team and they see that they can't catch up based on pure numbers.
I understand the frustration but that is life my friends.
People chose which team to be on knowing full well beforehand what they were getting into. There seemed to be no problem until XS geared up and many new people including myself submitted results.
Now people want the rules changed so that the smaller teams in terms of numbers are on "fairer footing" from their perspective.
IE: If you can't beat them, change the rules.
We've seen this before in some DC apps. Other teams screaming because XS came in and poured so much power into an app that other teams cried foul.
We've also seen admins of those apps cave in to those outcries to keep the whiners in those apps happy.
Can I tell you what the outcome was? XS walked away in disgust at the administrators lack of moral backbone.
Don't let that happen here.
This big team debate is older than you think. Please dig up some threads on the first (current) boints system if you don't believe me.
You don't have to tell me about Rosetta, i was there too. (QMC now, check my sig) I really don't wanna sound harsh mate but i didn't approve with how we (XS) conducted there. The new credit system was completely reasonable.
Thanks for starting this thread to ask us for opinions on what you and others have already decided on.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtzki
DDTUNG:cool:
I'll take your word on the debate. As to rosetta, had nothing to do with points structure, had to do with character and thats it..the lack off.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtzki
If you missed that point, you need to do some research also.;)
I'm gonna comment on the Rosetta thing.. and won't say much because this is HWBOT thread. k?Quote:
Originally Posted by mtzki
It was not about the new credit system, it was about admins lack of action on people crying cheat. And a general disregard for the crunching community. there is a video of Baker giving a lecture and in it referring to the cruncher community as 'kids' in a derogative way. Thats why I stopped crunching Rosetta about a month before most others did.
now as for HWBOT
DDTUNG has a point. However how do you award sufficiently fairly to those with or without means. Take the 15yr old who's got limited funds, but a lucky chip, a soldering iron, and a will to win and natural ability vs guy with Grade A watercooling, but not great with the BIOS and no modding skills. Its tough, cos the 2 cases are hard to verify the effort.
Even so.... the idea of splitting the team into a top ranked 40 is not perfect. If XS or any other team for that matter is Numero Uno because of sheer weight of numbers + a top layer of Xtreme benchers so be it. You must ask yourself then why do high membership teams have the numbers. Becuase there is a good, competitive and attractive team enviroment to bench in. It is credit to that high membership team to have the members in volumes.
EDIT: The reason the USA are usually top of the medal board at the end of each olympic games is because A) High numbers competing B) Some good, and some excellent athletes. This is the olympic model. If you want HWBOT to become the olympics of the Bench world, then take a lesson from the track & field based olympics. I'm sure all will end good.
This an idea which I have been playing with. Not at all the new hwboints systems, just an idea, which I like you guys to criticise :)
First a sketch of the situation:
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/4158/hwbointsba5.jpg
Note: numbers stand for 1st – 5th – last – maximum 1st
The members ranking are based on:
- Global points: 1 result / ranking
- Hardware points: 1 result / ranking / hardware
The team ranking are based on:
- Old system: Total of all user’s points
- New system: Total of n=40 best benchers of the team
Problem:
Because of the limit of users for one team, we might lose the interest of the more little benchers, who are not longer a (essential) part from their team. Only the big shots will provide the needed points for the team, so there will be less enthousiam (big benchers don't really need the team rankings as they already have the members ranking to show what they're made of).
Solution:
Start a new sort of ranking where the teams are divided into smaller subteams, e.g. XS A, XS B, XS C ...
The number of needed teams depends on the value of n.
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2964/tablehp5.jpg
As you can see, only XS will need a lot of subteams, if we change n to 50. Users will automaticaly change teams when they have enough points be in team A. Rest means the total of users that are not part of a team. I honestly have no idea if it would be interesting to have a subteam 'Xs F' with only three members.
Positive:
1) The compitiion will be more fair (helping the new hwboints revision to have a little more effect)
2) There will be more internal competition
Negavtive:
1) The less rich benchers will not be part of the A-squad, maybe demotivating and no more team spirit.
Problem:
The top 5 may be: Xs A, Ocx A, Xs B, Ocx B, Xs X.
Solution:
Create divisions. Let's work with an example:
Division 1: teams 1 - 15
Division 2: teams 16 - 30
...
Division 7: teams 90 - 105
Promotion: teams 105 - last
1) We need to work with the active teams. It's no use to create divisions for every team, because some teams have less than 5 points. The 105th team has +/- 11 points, 90th +/- 20, 75th +/- 40. When do we consider a team active?
2) Two teams promote and degrade every month.
3) We create some sort of history of the team with trophees, awards of what they have archieved in the past. A team will get a trophee if it promote and will have a big trophee if it wins the total league (so first in division 1). We can even create stats for the members as well, e.g. most contributing member, best scoring member of that division that particular month ...
4) The team's points are based on the total of points at the end of the month, so we don't start from zero every month. The rankings would change too much.
5) A team can only have one subteam in every division (this because of the top5 problem mentioned above).
This is only a very basic sketch. I know this isn't perfect (yet), but I really believe in this kind of competition. Teams will compete with equal teams in their division and when ready, they will be able to compete with better teams.
Some remarks:
1) Falling just out of the top40, let's say 45th or 50th isn't that bad, it's quite easy to do more benches and crawl back in the top40. The users who have lots of points short too get even close to the top40 who will be discouraged 'cause there's no way they'll ever be important to the team.
2)True, the A-team will be the most important, but that won't change a thing with the current situation. I think it's important to give the little teams more competition. I don't know for sure, but I think that some benchers may start their own team or join another team when they notice they are only in the D-squad. This way, we'll have more teams and less huge teams.Quote:
All eyes would be on A-teams, the others pretty useless. Users of big teams like XS could so quickly move from subteam to another that i doubt they would never feel at home at any of them (unless they are good enough to stay at A).
Well, this would follow the Olympic model. The US wins not on sheer numbers, but the ability to fill each category with their best while smaller countries cannot fill most of the categories available.
As for the team competition, simply have two awards. Just have an overall points score and a top 40 score. Once will show participation and the other will show off the top benching skills.
For all of those wanting air, water or phase classes, etc., that is not practical. People will simply claim water and enter the air class. There is no way to mediate that.
Well, yes. I think you are understimating what it takes to use DI or LN2. And, using that does not guarantee results. I have seen someone use phase on the same system specs and score almost 2000 points less in 3Dmark06 than another. Discovering the right memory timings, volt mods, driver tweaks, card behavior, BIOS mods, windows tweaks and anything else to create the fastest model takes a lot of time. I know OPB cab spend upwards of 40 hours on a single bench result. Run after run, looking for the elusive mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDTUNG
And, to counter, using a couple of 1.6 LV Xeons = no real interest. If you were a spectator at a sport, you watch the "big" game. If someone pulls off a WR with a Xeon 1.6 and a modded 7300GT for the 7300 series category, that's fine, but will draw almost no interest from any third party.
You don't have to talk to me like 3D benching was a mystery. I know all about what it takes to score a top bench. Been there myself a few years back along with OPP, MrIcee, Macci, DJ and the rest. Without the latest hardware and extreme cooling one will not get to the top of the ORB, however many hours spent tweaking and benching.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyH20
Benching is not a spectator sport. It's about pushing whatever system you have to its limit in a certain set of tests. Awarding benchers using high and low end equipment disproportionately, like what is being done, is unfair.
Team competition can only be fair if the same equipment is used by a fixed number of members from each team. Only then will it be a true test of skill.
DDTUNG:cool:
If that is what you truly think, then why have hardware points at all for those categories other than the newest,latest and greatest?Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyH20
I see a theme here thats unpleasant. What your looking to do is to change HWBot from what it is, a depository of benchmarks of all types, into a plain competition between the top people in the world and eliminate any others from team participation.
As to no real interest in a couple of 1.6 xeons being run at 3300+ 24/7 at full load for months? You think that takes any less skill than the guy with the phase setup?
I beg to differ with you on this.
I shut down a program,cranked up the PC to 3278, turned on wPrime and ran a 6+second run and it was a no adjustment, no tweak, just do it like writing an email..
To get that same machine to run at good temps on air at 3200 took weeks of adjustments, fan positions, different types, heatsinks, etc..
It may be different work, but it is no lesser.
Because your mind is tuned to single socket gamer boards you miss the work that goes into making a dual system competitive.
I will guarantee you that DDT has more time involved in tuning his 1.6's that you dismiss as of "no interest" than any 3 people have into their top gaming systems. Think on this point: His 1.6's are what age of technology? 3 years ago? How many 3 year old gaming systems are still relevant today? Not many if any. His systems in the arena he competes in are still highly competitive and it's due to his skills on them.
Sorry Victor for butting in but that line just hit me wrong.( and I see that you just beat me to this!)
End of rant..I'm not upset with you personally, it's this idea of "some people are better(more worthy) than others" and some hardware is important and some is not" that bothers me.