hwboints rev2

I'm afraid the upcoming revision might hurt XS a bit in the overall competition. :sofa:

Everyone's boints should increase in the change. And the new definition rewards for trying much better. If you had hard time getting any boints before, there might a nice surprise coming. :)

Details here: http://www.hwbot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=547


Main changes:

* Increasing the position ranges for awarding boints, especially by introducing the 'offsets' to give boints to all the user's best scores in every global and hw ranking. Users are guaranteed to get at least goffset=1 boint for every bm (if they have a submission that is). This will make the system much more rewarding and motivating especially for new users.

* Team overall score computed by summing the overall points for only the top n benchers of the team. Removes the big team bias (which would be much worse after the above change), makes the needed team size much more manageable and should result in more interesting team competition in the long run.

* Steeper global boints curve between #6 to #20 and #20 to #100. The current system doesn't discriminate these positions enough. E.g. from 6th to 20th position boints drop only by 2.3. In the new system this drop would be 13.2.


Questions:

1) The current ratio between the level of hw boints vs. global boints is 1/6. Should this be higher or lower in your opinion? Please note that there is only one global ranking per benchmark whereas every benchmark has many hw categories.

2) The new system computes the overall score for a team by adding the overall boints for the top n benchers of the team (or less if the team has smaller size than n). So what should the value of n be? This first proposition has n=40.

Rev2 is only a proposition at this point. The new system won't take place before richba5tard comes back from his tour of Australia. And there's still plenty of time to share your opinions which may well count for this. :toast:

The new system won't change much the relative boints levels between benchers from team to another. So we can predict the effect of the team overall competition change by computing the sums of top40s with the current boints. So the actual boint levels in the new system would be quite different, but we get a good idea for the relative boints from team to team. Yesterday 12.2. the n=40 rule would have given:

XS: 5079.6
OCX: 4481.4

And other teams far behind and with very little change to their boints. The actual situation (summing boints for all members was) XS 6.2k, OCX 4.8k.

But if we apply the new offsets and still stay with the current team overall competition definition, the situation would be very different. Consider a team that has 1000 benchers who all send one result (any!) to each hwbot bm. Maybe they don't have SLI/CF, so let's assume they get a result to the 12 different categories that give boints atm (there are 17 with SLI/CF).
-> that's at least

Code:

---

1000*12*(goffset + hwoffset) = 1000 * 12 * 1.1 = 13200

---

boints to start with regardless of the level of the results.

So the change in team competition
1) isn't that big compared with the current situation,
2) is really a necessity together with all the other changes.

Silence is good or bad?? :confused::D

hard to make accurate judgement when the points have not been given out yet. Sounds good tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtzki

Silence is good or bad?? :confused::D

---

boints=points????

Well, if XS goes to ~5k from nearly 7k and the other forums fall only a small amount....ummmm, bad?

How is that fair? We have many of the top benchers and many, many results posted, we should have all our bases covered....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riptide

boints=points????

---

Yah. They are half-officially called hwboints, boints for short. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

How is that fair?

---

admit it, the current revision is overly skewed towards very large teams who can just churn out results like there's no tomorrow ;)

Yes, death by a thousand paper cuts. I like the new boints system since it reduces the impact of thousands and allows smaller teams to compete. So, instead of a runaway first place, or a battle between two teams, the race is truly limited to the best bench teams based on the top talent (top 40) put forth by all. I suspect that we may start to see a tighter race between the top 5 teams which will make the competition more interesting.

Quote:

---

Main changes:

* Increasing the position ranges for awarding boints, especially by introducing the 'offsets' to give boints to all the user's best scores in every global and hw ranking. Users are guaranteed to get at least goffset=1 boint for every bm (if they have a submission that is). This will make the system much more rewarding and motivating especially for new users.

---

What you need to score higher with that system :
Here we go ... find A LOT of old cheap/free hardware and just bench it all , no need to overclock (unless you want ) :D
Get at least 8 points (SuperPI 1M / 32M , PiFast , CPU-Z , PCMark04/05 , WPrime32/1024) guaranteed for EVERY CPU , no matter how it scores and clocks
Get at least 5 points (3d01/03/05/06/AM3) for almost every GPU, almost because some wont run all 3dmarks :) , no matter how it scores ...
Get all 78 Celerons :p: , bench them all :CTF: and get 78x8=624 points guaranteed :eek: :lol: no matter how bad you scored :stick:
With old (current) system at least you have to try , even with old hardware you need to be top5 in HW class to score ... with 1 point guaranteed all you have to do is get MORE and MORE hardware , and just test it non stop lol . How does that make sense ? :)

Quote:

---

* Increasing the position ranges for awarding boints, especially by introducing the 'offsets' to give boints to all the user's best scores in every global and hw ranking. Users are guaranteed to get at least goffset=1 boint for every bm (if they have a submission that is). This will make the system much more rewarding and motivating especially for new users.

---

Withis wery Incorekt point. I ok to Gorod!

I agree with Gorod. To give everyone 1 point isn't good idea!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyH20

I suspect that we may start to see a tighter race between the top 5 teams which will make the competition more interesting.

---

you mean top 13 teams LOL :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorod

What you need to score higher with that system :
Here we go ... find A LOT of old cheap/free hardware and just bench it all , no need to overclock (unless you want ) :D
Get at least 8 points (SuperPI 1M / 32M , PiFast , CPU-Z , PCMark04/05 , WPrime32/1024) guaranteed for EVERY CPU , no matter how it scores and clocks
Get at least 5 points (3d01/03/05/06/AM3) for almost every GPU, almost because some wont run all 3dmarks :) , no matter how it scores ...
Get all 78 Celerons :p: , bench them all :CTF: and get 78x8=624 points guaranteed :eek: :lol: no matter how bad you scored :stick:
With old (current) system at least you have to try , even with old hardware you need to be top5 in HW class to score ... with 1 point guaranteed all you have to do is get MORE and MORE hardware , and just test it non stop lol . How does that make sense ? :)

---

One can only have a single result (the best score across all hw setups) applicable for a single global ranking. The new system only guarantees hwoffset =0.1 boints per setup in single rankings. So 600 boints guaranteed for 6000 different benches. Good luck with that. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtzki

One can only have a single result (the best score across all hw setups) applicable for a single global ranking. The new system only guarantees hwoffset =0.1 boints per setup in single rankings. So 600 boints guaranteed for 6000 different benches. Good luck with that. :D

---

this sounds much better :)

Changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game is never fair, IMHO.

DDTUNG:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyH20

Yes, death by a thousand paper cuts. I like the new boints system since it reduces the impact of thousands and allows smaller teams to compete. So, instead of a runaway first place, or a battle between two teams, the race is truly limited to the best bench teams based on the top talent (top 40) put forth by all. I suspect that we may start to see a tighter race between the top 5 teams which will make the competition more interesting.

---

To take this line of reasoning one step further, shouldn't we limit the number of scores from each member? Where does one draw the line?

DDTUNG:cool:

There are points here that either I'm missing or that don't make sense to me.
Why limit a teams totals to the top 40 people on that team?
Doesn't that destroy what "team" is all about?
That would be like one of the DC apps saying that all they will give credit to is the top 40 people who return work for them when in reality it would be thousands..
You also set yourself up to have members submit work in one of those top 40 members names and trust me, that will happen.
The size of a team should not matter at all. That's the individuals choice on what team to be on but whatever is submitted should count towards that teams score.
Just take me as an example, I have I beleive app 70+ points..I didn't do this for me, but for the team totals.
If you only use the top 40 people you will lose many people from submitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

There are points here that either I'm missing or that don't make sense to me.
Why limit a teams totals to the top 40 people on that team?
Doesn't that destroy what "team" is all about?
That would be like one of the DC apps saying that all they will give credit to is the top 40 people who return work for them when in reality it would be thousands..
You also set yourself up to have members submit work in one of those top 40 members names and trust me, that will happen.
The size of a team should not matter at all. That's the individuals choice on what team to be on but whatever is submitted should count towards that teams score.
Just take me as an example, I have I beleive app 70+ points..I didn't do this for me, but for the team totals.
If you only use the top 40 people you will lose many people from submitting.

---

yeah that part confuses me, but remember this is all preliminary proposals I guess ?

my team only has 27 members right now but it's holding it's own even if some benchmarks we don't have the full top 10 entries yet... don't think limiting the team totals to a certain number is that good an idea.

maybe have a team total and a team top 40 total.. so 2 team HOF rankings ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eva2000

yeah that part confuses me, but remember this is all preliminary proposals I guess ?

my team only has 27 members right now but it's holding it's own even if some benchmarks we don't have the full top 10 entries yet... don't think limiting the team totals to a certain number is that good an idea.

maybe have a team total and a team top 40 total.. so 2 team HOF rankings ??

---

Hello my friend!:D
I have to disagree. It should be free to all and all entries have the same chances,etc..
The "top" people will still be the top people regardless of which team they are on but to discourage the little guys(like myself) is a mistake.
In this I am able to contribute to my team and it is just that feeling that is what is important here. The being part of the whole.
Individual honors for the top people will still exist.
In the Dc world XS has one of the smaller teams in terms of numbers but some of the strongest teams because of the quality of the machinery that we run but not all of that machinery is "state of the art" Some is 2-5 years old but those members aren't excluded and they darn well aren't looked upon differently.It is the putting of the resources from all into one pool that makes a team..
I understand the thinking that made the people from HWBot think of this idea, I just disagree with the logic behind it.

I agree with Movieman.

XS DC has been able to take top honors in several DC apps against much larger teams. We achieved that by recruiting as well as by increasing output from existing members, not by cutting the size of our competitors.

DDTUNG:cool:

From what I see, there are couple of main efforts.

1. Increase the availability of boints so that everyone can post a decent number. This should improve interest levels from the "small guy" as someone aptly coined. Nothing like posting a big 15 points up when the leader has 700. If that spread was narrowed, the ranking would likely remain the same, but people will likely post 24 points up if the leader is at 150. That seems a more bridgable gap.

2. Make the team competition more about skill than numbers. Limiting the team score to the Top 40 will help bring about more competition. It is more interesting to watch a close race between two or more groups than to witness a run away lead. Take the OCX versus XS battle for first back in December. That was interesting. The current state, however, is not.


And, I do not think you can compare a benchmark competition to DC. In DC, it is all about CPU cycles, the more the better. In benchmarking, it is about taking some hardware and pushing the envelope. I would rather watch the antics of OPB, OPP, Hipro or the likes help push their team into the lead instead of 2000 people benchmarking P4 2.8a's for 4 points each to take the team lead. Not that benchmarking a P4 2.8 is not without merit, but, we need to focus attention on things that will draw interest. This is more about creating some excitement and competition in the OC world with, for the first time, a carefully crafted arena.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyH20

From what I see, there are couple of main efforts.

1. Increase the availability of boints so that everyone can post a decent number. This should improve interest levels from the "small guy" as someone aptly coined. Nothing like posting a big 15 points up when the leader has 700. If that spread was narrowed, the ranking would likely remain the same, but people will likely post 24 points up if the leader is at 150. That seems a more bridgable gap.

2. Make the team competition more about skill than numbers. Limiting the team score to the Top 40 will help bring about more competition. It is more interesting to watch a close race between two or more groups than to witness a run away lead. Take the OCX versus XS battle for first back in December. That was interesting. The current state, however, is not.


And, I do not think you can compare a benchmark competition to DC. In DC, it is all about CPU cycles, the more the better. In benchmarking, it is about taking some hardware and pushing the envelope. I would rather watch the antics of OPB, OPP, Hipro or the likes help push their team into the lead instead of 2000 people benchmarking P4 2.8a's for 4 points each to take the team lead. Not that benchmarking a P4 2.8 is not without merit, but, we need to focus attention on things that will draw interest. This is more about creating some excitement and competition in the OC world with, for the first time, a carefully crafted arena.

---

So you are saying that a team with more people benching their rigs on phase or DI or LN2 should win? To me there is more accomplishment in benching a pair of 1.6 LV Xeons @3.3 with IWTs on a modded PC-DL than slamming a triple cascade on a E6800. Equipment does not equal skill.

Excitement in the benching world has always been generated by individual antics, not elitist teams. Until a system of point awards exists that recognizes similar levels of achievement with different equipment, there can be no fair competition.

And just for your information there is more to DC than turning on more computers for longer periods, but I'll leave that discussion to a more suitable venue.

DDTUNG:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyH20

2. Make the team competition more about skill than numbers. Limiting the team score to the Top 40 will help bring about more competition. It is more interesting to watch a close race between two or more groups than to witness a run away lead. Take the OCX versus XS battle for first back in December. That was interesting. The current state, however, is not.

---

That would discourage the smaller benchers a lot. If you try your best to reach an insane score with a 6800gt and you're not in the team ranking, you won't post any more results anymore.

A team stays a team, whether your first, second or third.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

So you are saying that a team with more people benching their rigs on phase or DI or LN2 should win? To me there is more accomplishment in benching a pair of 1.6 LV Xeons @3.3 with IWTs on a modded PC-DL than slamming a triple cascade on a E6800. Equipment does not equal skill.

.......
DDTUNG:cool:

---

QFT^^^^

Don't lie man. You've got swiftechs finest 607 blocks on them I'd reckon.:D Before i sell them I must have another go on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riptide

QFT^^^^

Don't lie man. You've got swiftechs finest 607 blocks on them I'd reckon.:D Before i sell them I must have another go on them.

---

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.

DDTUNG:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

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.

DDTUNG:cool:

---

:clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

Changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game is never fair, IMHO.

---

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 Movieman

There are points here that either I'm missing or that don't make sense to me.
Why limit a teams totals to the top 40 people on that team?
Doesn't that destroy what "team" is all about?
That would be like one of the DC apps saying that all they will give credit to is the top 40 people who return work for them when in reality it would be thousands..
You also set yourself up to have members submit work in one of those top 40 members names and trust me, that will happen.
The size of a team should not matter at all. That's the individuals choice on what team to be on but whatever is submitted should count towards that teams score.
Just take me as an example, I have I beleive app 70+ points..I didn't do this for me, but for the team totals.
If you only use the top 40 people you will lose many people from submitting.

---

Gotta admit that here lies the worst downside of rev2.

(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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ojdr2001

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtzki

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtzki

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 ;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

I know it would be difficult to build up in a way everyone is happy, but I think it's worth it.

---

It is absolutely impossible. Believe me. Please let's continue this discussion at the bot forum if you want to.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtzki

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.
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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtzki

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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtzki

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.

DDTUNG:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtzki

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.

---

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.
If you missed that point, you need to do some research also.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtzki

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.

---

I'm gonna comment on the Rosetta thing.. and won't say much because this is HWBOT thread. k?
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)

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).

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

So you are saying that a team with more people benching their rigs on phase or DI or LN2 should win? To me there is more accomplishment in benching a pair of 1.6 LV Xeons @3.3 with IWTs on a modded PC-DL than slamming a triple cascade on a E6800. Equipment does not equal skill.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyH20

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyH20

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 underestimating 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.

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.

---

If that is what you truly think, then why have hardware points at all for those categories other than the newest,latest and greatest?
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorod

What you need to score higher with that system :
Here we go ... find A LOT of old cheap/free hardware and just bench it all , no need to overclock (unless you want ) :D
Get at least 8 points (SuperPI 1M / 32M , PiFast , CPU-Z , PCMark04/05 , WPrime32/1024) guaranteed for EVERY CPU , no matter how it scores and clocks
Get at least 5 points (3d01/03/05/06/AM3) for almost every GPU, almost because some wont run all 3dmarks :) , no matter how it scores ...
Get all 78 Celerons :p: , bench them all :CTF: and get 78x8=624 points guaranteed :eek: :lol: no matter how bad you scored :stick:
With old (current) system at least you have to try , even with old hardware you need to be top5 in HW class to score ... with 1 point guaranteed all you have to do is get MORE and MORE hardware , and just test it non stop lol . How does that make sense ? :)

---

so wait.. spending more time and resources on benchmarking gets you more boints? who would have thought? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

Changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game is never fair, IMHO.

DDTUNG:cool:

---

it's like their wasn't a large header above each HWBOINT ranking that the algorithm was in BETA and subject to change... right? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

To take this line of reasoning one step further, shouldn't we limit the number of scores from each member? Where does one draw the line?

---

read the first post more attentively, more results doesn't equal very high score, as only the best result will net your boints

JMke:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmke

it's like their wasn't a large header above each HWBOINT ranking that the algorithm was in BETA and subject to change... right? :rolleyes:

---

A Beta generally means that an app is near to the final copy, not that it will be turned upside down and inside out for it's next release.
The kind of change thats being proposed here is the type that one would expect to see while it was still with the programmers before any release.
By the way, just out of curiousity, what team do you bench for?
Thanks in advance for your reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmke

read the first post more attentively, more results doesn't equal very high score, as only the best result will net your boints

JMke:cool:

---

Obviously. One look at the number of results submitted by Kingpin and OPB and their respective positions confirms that. But it is also obvious you did not follow the logic of my original statement.

DDTUNG:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

A Beta generally means that an app is near to the final copy, not that it will be turned upside down and inside out for it's next release.
The kind of change thats being proposed here is the type that one would expect to see while it was still with the programmers before any release.
By the way, just out of curiousity, what team do you bench for?
Thanks in advance for your reply.

---

The base of the hwboints stays pretty much the same, so the members ranking won't change that much. We're only trying to find the best solution for the teams ranking. You can't say this is completely turned upside down.

He benches for [M]adshrimps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

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.

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:

---

There is no mystery, and, yes, you need some very good equipment to get to the top. The more we go through this, the more it reminds me of racing cars. Brackets, classes, and defined specs and all the cars race on the same track. There is no less effort to win any category, but we all watch the F1 cars, not the unlimited GT. And much like boints, the paydays for winning F1 are a little bigger due to popularity.

And, like racing, winning is is a mix of equipment and skills. The two are married. So, a skills competition alone can never exist and will draw little attention.

There is no right way to create a fair arena since we are basically running an unlimited open category race. The fastest wins in each category, period. So, a Xeon 5350 will win in the FPU tests and the Kentsfield gaming rigs in the 3DMark06 race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmke

it's like their wasn't a large header above each HWBOINT ranking that the algorithm was in BETA and subject to change... right? :rolleyes:

---

Change that penalizes a particular group will not be welcome.

DDTUNG:cool:

the boint system that is currently in use was never defined as final, and it is open for change in the beginning fase as we started to learn how it would react to different HW submissions and teams, mtzki is striving to make a system to balance between hardware and global boints, a balance between team scores and individual scores. Not easily done, proposal here is not to make it unfair for a particular group, we couldn't care less (in HWBoint calculation view) which teams are at the top, how many members they have and how many points they have. The idea is to streamline the HWbot team ranking to make it less likely that by simply submitting a lot of scores with hunderds of people, you get top spot.

HWbot and benchmarking is not like DC, F@H or other none benchmark related rankings; a balance has to be found between the above mentioned parameters, and some choices are to be made to make it future proof, currently the database is filling up nicely with reference scores but we need to focus on how we can spice up the team competition as well as the individual competition, without braking the whole site;

mtzki posted here to hear you thoughts on his proposal as some changes are going to be made, but which one exactly and how do we define some of the parameters in the calculation process.

it seems to me that you don't get the whole idea of "making the competition interesting", what I read here mostly is a biased opinion because you bench for XS and currently have an unchallenged lead because of the massive following?

JMke:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyH20

There is no mystery, and, yes, you need some very good equipment to get to the top. The more we go through this, the more it reminds me of racing cars. Brackets, classes, and defined specs and all the cars race on the same track. There is no less effort to win any category, but we all watch the F1 cars, not the unlimited GT. And much like boints, the paydays for winning F1 are a little bigger due to popularity.

And, like racing, winning is is a mix of equipment and skills. The two are married. So, a skills competition alone can never exist and will draw little attention.

There is no right way to create a fair arena since we are basically running an unlimited open category race. The fastest wins in each category, period. So, a Xeon 5350 will win in the FPU tests and the Kentsfield gaming rigs in the 3DMark06 race.

---

The more I read your posts the stronger feeling I get that you are trying to turn benching into a commercial proposition.

But I thought you were saying a few posts back that the team with the best benching skills should win.

If it is truly open category, then why is HWbot trying to award more points to the little guys? Please make up your mind.

I have no desire to see this thread filled by arguments like the ones you or jmke are starting, so I will refrain from further comments.

DDTUNG:cool:

No changes that benefits a particular group, will be welcome I suppose :)

Let me try and say this with all the emotion and the side issues left out of this.
If there is a change that only accepts the top 40 members that change effectively only hurts one team. Is that essentially correct?
Aside from that, it is a slap in the face to anyone from any team who can no longer contribute to "their" team.
God's truth guys, there are a hell of a lot of us that do this JUST for the team and the individual points mean squat diddley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ojdr2001

No changes that benefits a particular group, will be welcome I suppose :)

---

Correct and by that logic no change should be made that benefits a particular group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

If there is a change that only accepts the top 40 members that change effectively only hurts one team. Is that essentially correct?

---

Exactly. Thats why is correct... means the present system benefits only one team.... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ojdr2001

Exactly. Thats why is correct... means the present system benefits only one team.... :)

---

No, the present system benefits every team. Every team is free to solicit any amount of people they care to. Freedom of choice.

yes we all know the amount of people into benchmarking is 99% of the PC market;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

The more I read your posts the stronger feeling I get that you are trying to turn benching into a commercial proposition.

But I thought you were saying a few posts back that the team with the best benching skills should win.

If it is truly open category, then why is HWbot trying to award more points to the little guys? Please make up your mind.

I have no desire to see this thread filled by arguments like the ones you or jmke are starting, so I will refrain from further comments.

DDTUNG:cool:

---

I do not see anyone arguing. This is simply an open discussion on how to make HWBOT successful, not XS. Even with the new system, XS will still own the top team spot. And, in open racing categories, only the fastest 20 cars in each category are allowed on the track.

The best benching skills will and have won. But, they are married to the equipment as well. So, even with great skills and an air cooled system, you will not win. That is expected, however. I think what you are looking for is recognition as the top in each category/class. So, the best air cooled, watercooled, phase, and LN2 cooled x6800 should be recognized? And, should points be awarded for that accomplishment? And, then, how would you determine if it was really air cooled? That is the difficulty.

As for the commercial component, yes. It is for HWBOT. They are not simply doing this for pure fun, they need to have some sponsorships to make the success of the site feasible and affordable. So, the popular/current hardware benchmarks are what interests people. It certainly draws web traffic to VR-Zone when Shimano puts up some big numbers with some newly released equipment.

I think we are all striving for the same thing from different angles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

No, the present system benefits every team. Every team is free to solicit any amount of people they care to. Freedom of choice.

---

So, it is now a popularity vote? I would rather see XS win with atleast a few people in the Top 40 list. With the current algorithm, if you have thousands of average results, you have the best team. I would rather see the big dogs(like OPB, hipro5, Overklokk, k|ngp|n, etc) race for individual and team results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmke

it seems to me that you don't get the whole idea of "making the competition interesting", what I read here mostly is a biased opinion because you bench for XS and currently have an unchallenged lead because of the massive following?

JMke:cool:

---

Just one more response before I stop.

All through this thread I have tried to make constructive discussion including some suggestions of how to make the points system and competition more fair. Now I am being called biased.

DDTUNG:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmke

yes we all know the amount of people into benchmarking is 99% of the PC market;)

---

I totally missed your point if there was one. The people on these forums involved don't represent the entire PC market and you know that so why make that comment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyH20

So, it is now a popularity vote?

---

That is not what I said at all. I was answering a point about teams and the current situation favoring the team with more members.
It is the freedom of choice of everyone to bench for who they want to.
That was my point. Lets take your comment one step further: What if everone decided to bench for one team? By what has been proposed here today no one but the top 40 would be allowed to be on that team.
I'm back to point one, to do this you really are shooting yourself in the foot.

Anyone can bench for whoever they want. That is not at issue. But, popularity alone should not mean a team should win. No bullet holes in my feet. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

I have no desire to see this thread filled by arguments

---

yes flaming is so much better; arguments ruin it all.... :/ where exactly are your constructive posts in this thread that help with the issue at hand and relate to the first post? All I see is "that change of HWBot will be bad for XS, you don't change beta code, ... etc"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I totally missed your point if there was one. The people on these forums involved don't represent the entire PC market and you know that so why make that comment?

---

the enthusiast market is not endless, there is a limit to the amount of people who benchmark actively for fun, if you have for example 10.000 peeps, and they are divided among 100 teams, but 2-3 teams cover the first 7000 peeps, how interesting will team competition be? The other 97 can't just recruit member out of thin air ;)

why are people slammed down for thinking outside the box here? Why does it have to relate to DC, F@H, it has nothing to do with that at all. :-/

JMke:cool::cool:

What was portrayed as a discussion has now turned into what it really was:
A veiled way to say to XS that" guess what guys, we're changing all the rules because you guys just can bring too much to the team competitions and other teams aren't happy so we're cutting the team competition down to the top 40 people making HWBot an eliteist site for only those that can bench with phase,DI or LN2 and oops, yea, we'll probably lose all those DI guys here too cause they just aren't the cream of the crop."
The more that has been said today the more it shows that this decision was made long before this thread was started.
I'll be right over to delete my account and my results as I wouldn't want any of my air cooled results to get in the way of what you guys have planned.
If that sounds a little too cold and spiteful,good, because thats exactly how I feel after being told by you that I'm not good enough to even add to the teams totals.
Sayonara, I'm out of here.

yes, our team (madshrimps) is stuck full of LN2/DI guys and we're sure to meet that 40 member quota, we're doing this to screw over XS and put some elite teams in front, you got it all figured out. Bravo!

Actually, as a one of those "lower-rank banchers", I feel the same as movieman. I got #2 spots for my hardware, #2's I don't have are only one weekend of benching away. I kind of pride myself on that... my 24/7 system is #2!!:lol2:

Tell me, please, how someone such as myself, who's scores are only eclipsed by D/I, LN2 bencher...is gonna compete, in the new scheme? I cannot.

That means the $1000+ I spend a month on my personal hardware, tweaking, trying to find more performance, is just for my own personal benefit, and not for the team here. Now, if i decided that i spend that money on cooling, rather than a myriad of hardware, I could compete, I suppose, but to what end? Sure i can have good idea as to how cpu's will clock now, becuase I have many, but what happens when I must spend money on cooling, instead of parts to ensure I know what I am doing?:stick:


This would be the perfect definition of "elitist". You need the elitist hardware(cooling) to compete. I'm just a nobody, and I like it that way. You are seemingly making this for peopele that want "to be someone", which makes no sense, imho.


Time to re-think benching, i think. Knitting sounds fun....

Movieman, read what you want into it, that is your decision to "take your ball and run home". But, as stated, the team competition could maintain two team categories. One for overall points (popular vote, so to speak and currently in force) and the other for overall best team (by considering the Top 40 scores). HWBot Rev 2 may not address this, but it is a work in progress.

I for one, run my benches on my 24/7 gaming system. I do not consider myself any type of elitist bencher. I do it on a casual basis, at best. I use it for e-mail, playing games, and the occasional benches. And, I do not spend thousands per month on hardware. It is a simple hobby that I enjoy. And, look at EVA2000. He runs air and watercooling yet finds himself in the top 10.

Out of curiosity....

Let's all step back for a sec and let me ask this:
What is EXPLICITLY wrong with the current points system?

* difference between TOP 5 and lower scores it too small, HWBoints should rank up quicker when you near the top.

* Award every best score points to encourage higher participation.

* Balance global ranking with hardware ranking, a little more weight towards hardware ranking to make benchmarking slightly less popular HW worthwhile.

the team ranking can be made more interesting by limiting top=n to encourage team competition. but it's not final, and nobody said it was, it's a discussion, not a dictator ship, some here fail to notice the difference:)

@cadaveca: the changes mentioned above here in my post would be for the better for the "low level" benchers;

Have to agree with jmke. They are simply tweaking the system. Adding more points for the average, casual bencher, reducing the effect of pure membership on the team score, and granting more points for the top 20 instead of the top 5. Nothing really that big.

If anything, these changes work toward removing the elitist stigma rather than create it. If only the biggest sites can win the team title, and the casual bencher cannot get any decent points, why play?

Let's say you are a casual bencher on a small site (not XS). Your team is small so they cannot compete on the team ranking against the XS Juggernaut and the leaders' scores are 300 times higher than yours. Hmm, joining certainly does not sound very intriguing.

Well, when i noticed a long time ago that my GDDR4 x1950xtx and crossfire was grouped with 256mb GDDR3 cards, i gave up on hwbot. If you cannot differentiate between the hardware...what's the point?

I'm sry if this seems a bit irrational, but really...noone with actual x1950xt can compete....:fact:

make suggestions in the hwbot forums for adding HW, that's what they are for:)

Yes, I understand, but this is more than what a casual bencher will udnertake. for those really concerned about points, they will cry foul, but others(like me:lol2:) take advantage of the system...


I'm not trying to make light of anything, but before you can distribute points, you gotta be able to confirm the hardware being used to get those points. I plainly advertised in all forum posts with scores as to what my system was truly comprised of, yet your system changed my rig to fit within a lower class as there wasn't a class for it to fit into ATM. I should not have to point this out....:fact: That would be up the the staff @ hwbot...not just the top scores need policing.

we're all adults here, I hope, HWBot is a based on contributions and coding on voluntary basis, we have people who work at keeping the hardware database and auto detect codes up to date with the hardware that is out there, but you can't expect to have everything in there from the get go;

if you find your hardware to be not present in the video card database, a small post in the current forum and a few days later I'll show up and you can link it with your profile.

pretty casual action:)

Yes, I agree, however the casual bencher may not be aware that there IS a forum where this sort of thing can be addressed. I wasn't until recently, myself.

Maybe a little link within a person's profile to report thier own scores?

good idea, when hardware is not listed, possibility to send in small report for inclusion.

I'm a casual bencher too btw, beat your HWboints score by a massive 0.5! :)

http://www.hwbot.org/signature.img?t=1&uid=21

lol i'd be a bit more casual than you...you have many more results! :lol2:

Well I'm on the bot since February 2006 so that might account for most of them as the bot scanned our forums where there are results which date from several years back. Only recent benches I did was with Core2/G80 and that was 1 hour tops for the Futuremarks :)

Air, water results category are useless since ambient air delta is too big :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

I'm not trying to make light of anything, but before you can distribute points, you gotta be able to confirm the hardware being used to get those points. I plainly advertised in all forum posts with scores as to what my system was truly comprised of, yet your system changed my rig to fit within a lower class as there wasn't a class for it to fit into ATM. I should not have to point this out....:fact: That would be up the the staff @ hwbot...not just the top scores need policing.

---

Like JMke already said, not it's not doable to check 30k results and verify them.

Unless you want to hire us and pay us to make this our job ? ;)

As a casual bencher....I very much like the current system. I have to fight for my points for my team and they help my team. But at the same time, I'm not getting the same amount of points as a top guy does. That's exactly how it should be. Why change it if it's not broke?

I'm having a hard time finding the exact points that people have issue with the current system.....so I'll list where I have issue with the proposed system.

1) I don't want free points for just trying. If my score isn't good enough to give my team points, don't give me sympathy points. People will try, and if they don't cut it, they don't cut it.

2) At the same time, don't make it that top scores are so valuable, that 'lower' scores are an afterthought. Every member, if they're capable, should be able to contribute to their team in a worthwhile manner. However, if their scores are not good enough for points, they'll have to try harder.

3) Making it such that only the top 40 contribute to the premiere HOF standing will truly discourage participartion.....if someone figures they can contribute 40 points from casual benching, but the top 40 cut off is at 65 points, they just won't bother. As it stands, benchmarking less popular hardware is very worthwhile....that's how I have all my team's points and until today I was proud of my contribution.

4) The motive for the change is to lessen what the largest team is capable of. That's not how you level the field. Considering the current points system, it's actually feasible to beat a larger team, you just need to earn the points through getting very good scores that beat their very good scores. The new system seems to be pulling a Tonya Harding on the competition.....

Like DC apps, you can overcome having fewer benchers by just doing it better than them. Have your casual benchers beat our casual benchers and have your top guys beat our top guys.....you'd be surprised how quickly "just doing it better" adds up with the current point system (afterall, not only does it increase your own points, it lowers their points)

Well, let's flip the bit a little. Let's say you are on a smaller team, 80 users, and you all have decent scores. But, since your team does not have the funding to give away a $500 prize for team participation, your recruiting efforts are less efficient. I guess the big get bigger and the rest are hung out to dry. Yep, sounds fair. ;)

If you want to be the better team, get the better scores across the board.

The rest of the teams aren't hung out to dry at all....otherwise they wouldn't be competing.

Use the competition as the carrot.

We certainly did....when XS fell to #2, I submitted my results to hwbot. So did other XSrs. Others just ratcheted up their effort.

One of the things the owner was capable of doing for helping his team was to invest in a hardware 'carrot' for others and used that to get points. OCX could do the same thing, rather than going out and getting a QX6700 that might net an extra 40 points, you could get 2 $500 prizes and get more contribution from all netting an extra 400 points.

As someone who contributes to XSDC, I'm extremely familiar with being the 'small guy' and with effort you can get to the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Like JMke already said, not it's not doable to check 30k results and verify them.

Unless you want to hire us and pay us to make this our job ? ;)

---

I am very sorry for saying this, but...

If you intend to keep an semi-offical database of scores that are used to compare "world rankings", then you better dman well be able to police the database, or ALL SCORES ARE SUSPECT, as is the usefulness of the site. As it is now, no, I WOULD NOT PAY for such a system. Show me a viable database where results are verified to be good, then you've got a marketable system.


I'm not trying to make light of what you guys are doing, but if you DO intend this to be more than it already is, you really must consider this.

"Pay me!" is not the way to properly market yourself. I actually just lost a lot of respect for you because of this comment...you make it obvious that it's all about money.


"We are doing our best with the resources currently available, and are looking into making this a viable option, but finances are an issue at this point" would have rubbed me the right way.:fact:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PallMall

and so what does a bigger site has to do with a smaller one that can't cut it? law of the strongest i would say...
it's not like that team just popped out the ground with a enormous base...
they had to work their ass of as well, if you get what i mean..:)

---

I am not speaking for OCX. We do fine as is. And, if we wanted to give away a prize, that would be easy enough. So, following your logic, a large team of casual benchers could win the team category without single user in the Top 50. The goal is to create competition, not a popularity contest. Besides, even with the Top 40 limit, XS is still well in the lead.

The smaller teams are working hard and recruiting for a team is crucial to success, to which all of them are diligently working. Until the middle of January, I did not know much about HWBOT or the team competition until someone from OCX approached me. So, that part does work. I suppose we could get [H] members to form a team, and with their size, they would be the run away leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyH20

Movieman, read what you want into it, that is your decision to "take your ball and run home"

---

I'd planned to get the hell out of this thread but I don't like leaving and having someone take a cheap shot at me.
I took no ball, that implies that I stopped the game.
I did not stop it, actually you people are the ones taking the ability to "play" on a team level away from hundreds of people on XS.
Since it's obvious that decision has already been made I've voiced my displeasure, deleted my submissions at your site and will encourage others to do the same. Good day gentlemen.

Your choice of adjectives is improper. No cheap shot was made. Your comment:

Quote:

---

I'll be right over to delete my account and my results as I wouldn't want any of my air cooled results to get in the way of what you guys have planned.

---

was exactly that, taking your ball and going home.

I do not represent HWBOT, far from it. I am a simple casual bencher myself, and I cannot understand why giving MORE points to MORE users is a bad thing. And, I cannot understand why the limitation of a team size is in any way a bad thing. It promotes competition. While it may limit the inclusiveness of the team, it makes for better inclusiveness of the general OC community outside of XS. If the competition is reduced to a war of popularity, then the team competition will never be fair, and will utlimately kill the race. While some may feel left out, their individual contributions still help. The more results there are, the more impact in boints that category will have. That, in turn, helps the team, as well.

But, I suppose there is no method to keep everyone happy. There are also complaints that there is no AMD only race or ATI only race since the 8800 GTX and Intel Core 2 Duo are dominating. But, I guess that just goes with the nature of a race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyH20

Your choice of adjectives is improper. No cheap shot was made. Your comment:



was exactly that, taking your ball and going home.

I do not represent HWBOT, far from it. I am a simple casual bencher myself, and I cannot understand why giving MORE points to MORE users is a bad thing. And, I cannot understand why the limitation of a team size is in any way a bad thing. It promotes competition. While it may limit the inclusiveness of the team, it makes for better inclusiveness of the general OC community outside of XS. If the competition is reduced to a war of popularity, then the team competition will never be fair, and will utlimately kill the race. While some may feel left out, their individual contributions still help. The more results there are, the more impact in boints that category will have. That, in turn, helps the team, as well.

But, I suppose there is no method to keep everyone happy. There are also complaints that there is no AMD only race or ATI only race since the 8800 GTX and Intel Core 2 Duo are dominating. That just goes with the nature of a race.

---

Deleting my account effects ONLY me. Now I will ask you nicely not to repeat that remark to me or I will nicely ask that you be given a vacation.
Let it go my friend.

Well, to be fair, it was an accurate account of the action. Plain and simple. Hard to argue any different. And, thanks for the threat, I was trying not the debase this to a personal tyrade, but unfortunately, it looks like it has taken that route.

And, remember, these are proposed changes, not current. The discussion was to simply determine the effects, positive or negative to the current state. You have pointed out the negatives from your own perspective, and that is noted. But, from a larger picture, I think these changes will have a positive impact on the OC community as a whole. No change will impact everyone in a positive manner, but, reducing the negative impact to as few as possible is always a good goal. I think the new rev 2 boints accomplishes this task effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

I am very sorry for saying this, but...

If you intend to keep an semi-offical database of scores that are used to compare "world rankings", then you better dman well be able to police the database, or ALL SCORES ARE SUSPECT, as is the usefulness of the site. As it is now, no, I WOULD NOT PAY for such a system. Show me a viable database where results are verified to be good, then you've got a marketable system.


I'm not trying to make light of what you guys are doing, but if you DO intend this to be more than it already is, you really must consider this.

"Pay me!" is not the way to properly market yourself. I actually just lost a lot of respect for you because of this comment...you make it obvious that it's all about money.


"We are doing our best with the resources currently available, and are looking into making this a viable option, but finances are an issue at this point" would have rubbed me the right way.:fact:

---

I guess you have no idea how much time the crew puts in HWBot. Every day we have more than 64 reported result which takes about 1 hour 30 min to check for validation (if it's a result from a forum, check the forum for results). Apart from that, we have the results reported on our forums, PM's we need to answer and then we have our daily job/school.

I know, we have chosen for this, but you need to know that clearing the database from all wrong results (mostly it's just adding a screenshot or changing the cpu) would take ages to do and every day we recieve about 300 new results. This would only be possible if this would be our job.

But, with our 'report to moderator' service, we try to fix the obvious ones. So we are not letting the database become dirty so we can say 'pay us'. I'm a little upset of you having less respect because of that post, but I'll get over it.

massman PM, I hope you are the right person from hwbot :)

I dunno how this thread is going to help anything. Its obvious everyone at XS wants to keep the system how it is because it benefits them and everyone on the smaller teams wants the change to occur because it benefits them. Unfortunately whatever hwbot does you guys are going to jump all over them no matter what. Cut them some slack, they are just trying to help make the system more fun for everyone. Some will be pissed, some will be happy, hopefully in the end more will be happy than pissed. ;)

Movieman! Don't delete those scores or I'll kick your ass!!:)