Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/04/18 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    We are not talking about removing it from the ranking, nor from stripping points from the old submissions. What is under discussion is whether inactive members should receive member points / have an impact on team and country ranking.
  2. 3 points
    Folks, Does anyone REALLY believe that there are 204.959 Enthusiast members active ? Yes, I understand that from a marketing point of view, any new visitor here that thinks to join, says WOW. Truth though is so far-far away. I strongly doubt that there are no more than 15.000 active members in TOTAL, league irrelevant. And this is an extremely optimistic number. For example : An individual comes in here 10-5-3 years ago, submits 5-10-20 scores and never returns. All these stay in the database and are taken into account every single time a re-calculation happens. What is the meaning of retaining all these in the database ? Even Windows OS, has an option " delete old files " - " free up disk space " - " Defragment " My understanding is that this is a rational approach, easy to apply and does not hurt anyone. Not even the "marketing point of view". Registered users is one thing - benching members is another. Just my 2 cents.
  3. 2 points
  4. 2 points
    They wouldnt be taken out of the database the points just wouldnt be accredited to the teams.
  5. 2 points
    I saw the screens on facebook, so this is real frequency achieved
  6. 2 points
    IMO, inactivity is no submissions. I'm only speaking from a team standpoint, meaning no TPP from an inactive team member. Example: there are teams of over a thousand members that still rank very high in team standings even though there are less than a dozen "active" members still subbing. They maintain their team rank based on just the sheer amount of deadwood members. Remove the TPP from the deadwood and use only the active members and you have a much clearer outlook on how the team league stacks up. In theory this should reduce the load on your server also because you won't have to calc any deadwood until they sub and are no longer deadwood. It should also impact your 'stagnation' factor in the teams league.
  7. 1 point
    6820mhz R15 Retail 9900k Test setup z170M OCF // Bigblock Pot // Server2012 Runs 5.3/5.00 1.3v on normal water cooling (cache is strong) 5340Mhz @ 1.34v IMC strong capable of geekbench3 4300+ 12-11 on ln2 $850 shipped USA / International $880
  8. 1 point
  9. 1 point
    No, because he is no longer actively benching for his team. That doesn't take away from a legendary score at all. It's just his team will not be able to profit from it forever due to not benching any more. Can't help your team if you don't bench.
  10. 1 point
    No, this suggestion is not of me. I still think it's worth discussing as it means you are competing against active members. It's hard to see that as a negative.
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
  13. 1 point
    You could end up with some kind of 'retired' league, where users are put when inactive, so you can still see where they would rank etc, but the 'main' leagues are full of only active benchers, would make them more dynamic/relevant without 'losing' anything?
  14. 1 point
    We can also pretend , that OC LEGENDS of the past .... were never here !!! Lets delete them all.
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    What valuable on HWBot is database, i think you will lose more with auto removing older database. I dont agree on removing older database of inactive member.
  17. 1 point
    Which one do you recommend for 9900K? Apex X in hand here, untested.
  18. 1 point
    If you really can't find one locally/cheap shipping I'd sell you mine, basically new but thermal pad cut to fit 1151 backplate Ship from US to RO is Very Expensive tho https://imgur.com/a/cV3nlll
  19. 1 point
    well we could just use the same background and that would solve all of the conflicts.
  20. 1 point
    Background will be on the forum on the 9th. However is the option to delay it till monday better? So new background valid from the 10th on a more feasible solution to your planned bench weekend...
  21. 1 point
  22. 1 point
    I planned a session sub-zero with some friends for 7-8-9. Not to be any problems there,for 7-8 we should use the first background and for 9 it will be supplied when exactly ? sorry,we planned this for couple of weeks now,didn’t know the date will be moved.
  23. 1 point
    I'll maybe get some backlash from this but the Competition rules are getting ridiculous. First it was the meaningless mainboard tab with the Team Cup. For example AM3/DDR2. Okay you have a DDR2 tab and a CPU tab so who cares what board your using? Same for this Comp. GPU sensor tab? Really? Who cares what temp. your card is @? I have a feeling and it's only that that this was precipitated by a bunch of whiners from last year and not the staff.
  24. 1 point
    Yes, it has already been decided hardware master stays. Should we keep global masters too? Yes, just like in any other sport. Afaik there are no major sports where your achievements continue to contribute to your ranking for ever. Indeed, it would be an addition: we keep the all time ranking but also offer a view on the same algorithm/ranking scoped to this year only. Team points = sum of member points. So yes, sum of top 10 submissions+competition points for all members of that team. Same for country. I know "power points" where designed to prevent hardware sharing, but it just too complex to explain and maintain. Some are, some are not. Problem is that the achievements can be added at runtime, most are not coded by me. Pieter could write a query and it the query matched the achievement was awarded. But most queries are heavy and don't use db indexes, hence take a lot of db power. I like them though, will do my best to keep them. Maybe remove the once which are too db hungry? PS when commenting, check the first post as it reflects the current proposal adapted to the feedback here.
  25. 1 point
    Why don't we award less points for 3D then? I don't like the idea of giving a lot of points for "expensive but easy" 3D benchmarks, and then saying they don't count as much as it has less skill involved.
  26. 1 point
    I disagree. If OGS (Bob?) does not deserve to be marked as the most noteworthy overclocker of 2018, his submissions are not worth the points. It's not the fault of the seasonal ranking. An all-time ranking just hides the flaws a bit more because it is more static. Please note I'm not saying we should abolish the all-time rankings. I'm just highly in favor of seasonal rankings too. The current algorithm on UAT does not yet take competition points into account.
  27. 1 point
    Looks like heatsinks were installed backwards, flipped em around and now they do 4200+ c12-11-11 49/50/6/6 waza 1.8v real Thanks Splave !
  28. 1 point
    Have you all try low voltage? My gskill ocwc stick dont like more than 1.86v on Gene, more than that always failed.
  29. 0 points
  30. 0 points
    Tried booting a G.Skill TridentZ 4000c18 kit I bought of Egay at 4133 12-11 for a waza test - after several fails I swapped sticks because the kit easily did 4250 on Apex, the system booted and just shut down.Now doesn´t power on anymore, even after resting 12 hours without BIOS battery and reinserting cpu etc. Game over
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
  • Create New...