Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Rasparthe

  1. This is where I have issues, because I honestly have no idea where the General Rules are listed? I actually did search for this among the rule pages, but can't find a General Rules page. In the absence of a rules page we can't even point to another page that lists general rules. If there is a page it should probably be listed in the Benchmark listing so that anyone can find it easily (good place to put the ES rules, OS rules, etc) I wasn't protesting the fact the submission was allowed, although I have a number of issues with the Aquamark score, one is the lack of wrapper. It was stated that there would be some leeway for submissions since some of the stages made it impossible to follow the rules. If that score, which clearly is in violation of the rules, is allowed under this leeway, then why enforce a Win10 ban when that is quite a bit more subjective since there is no rules page that says it isn't allowed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about all the work that has gone into the wrappers to keep these things fair, its far more than I think anyone realizes. I just hate to see scores allowed when almost guaranteed there were people that didn't use certain hardware because they couldn't get the wrapper to work, only to find out later that the wrapper wasn't required. Some of the stages were a moderating nightmare and I don't think I complained about one score that was allowed to remain despite 'bending' of the rules, but then to have subs removed when they aren't even breaking a posted rule, thats the rub. EDIT: Okay found the General Rules, anyway that we can get them linked from the Benchmark Rules page. Had to go to the FAQ section and saw the link on the right hand side. Someone did a lot of work with that document but I've never seen it before.
  2. I still don't think you should be removing scores when there isn't a rules page that says you can't do something. Especially when it comes to a large competition like the TC. If no one has bothered to update a rules page for the benchmark then how can you remove scores for not following the rules. As was stated, unless you are constantly looking through old news items and delving into the forums you may not even know there was an issue, especially with a new OS like Win10. A good many submissions for TC were allowed despite a weak nod to the rules (http://hwbot.org/submission/2980283) but ones that don't break any posted rules are yanked?
  3. Incredible score, wonder if 1 is possible? Now if only there was a wrapper....
  4. Do you have an estimate on how much time commitment we are looking at for this program?
  5. You may not want to add him on Skype. He seems untrustworthy and can't stop changing his mind....
  6. Also remember that both will work. You will only see differences in what the volts will be when the mod is applied (at full resistance) and the sensitivity to adjustments. Using more or less resisting pots will cause each turn of the pot to increase or decrease the volts faster. If you carefully read your DMM with even tiny adjustments you shouldn't have any problem
  7. This was my main questions as well. If someone is a member of the CCTF are they excluded from participating in the competition?
  8. You may be correct, but it could also be just a case of a casual interest. Personally, and maybe you as well, can't understand a casual interest, but there may be people that will only get motivated to put together a bench session if there is a competition among your mates to do it. A year long ranking system just doesn't have the same sense of urgency. Also, as others have said, the Team Cup/ Country Cup is very casual friendly. The stages are usually pretty cheap to enter and may use hardware stored in closets and garages. I think its a pretty good indication that those competition formats work well. Your chart helped out a lot with the explanation. I actually rather like the idea but also can see some problems. A team with only 1 member that only uses very high end hardware would have a large advantage, since its a average of unique hardware. This artificial team would not be bogged down by scores on older platforms. Also teams that did not use newer hardware may end up with incredibly artificially low scores (imagine a team stuck in 2005 at Socket 775). I suspect the large backlash against the concept is because it seems counter intuitive. The Top 3 teams are in the position they are in (with the exception of Knopflerbruce) mostly because of the way the HWBOT focuses so heavily on newest generation. I would suggest they are there by accident, not by any desire from their members to increase their team ranking. I think this is confirmed by the fact that none of the Top-3 teams even bother to participate in the Team Cup, which sees a great deal of participation from other members. By setting up a system that focuses on Globals and by extension then, newest generation hardware it seems to be catering to the very members/teams that don't have more than a passing interest in the Team Rankings. I like the concept of this ranking system by why not use hardware points instead? I'll make a radical assumption but I suspect that most of the guys interested in Team Ranking grind out the hardware side of it compared to the globals. It doesn't work as cleanly as globals because there is already a set amount of benchmarks that use globals, but a picked set of benchmarks and the most popular (or all) sockets/GPU series average score. Each socket/series added like you proposed to give a team ranking. At any rate, since your system would run alongside the actual Team Rankings, I think it might be interesting to see what happens since its quite the grand departure from the traditional rankings. My only fear that focusing on newest generation hardware may actually alienate the guys that actually do care about the Team Rankings. Sidenote: Since we are talking ways to shake up the Team Rankings, why doesn't the 2015 Team Cup as a prize hand out Competition Points to the Teams that ranked highly. These points are only good until next Team Cup then they expire. A temporary boost for this year's winners in the ranking. Example (just throwing out values): 1st - ClassicPlatforms - 10000 Team Pt 2nd - Overclock.net - 20000 Team Pt 3rd - AwardFabrik - 5000 Team Pt 4th - Overclockers.com - 2500 team Pt etc...
  9. 1 - Depends on how many rounds you are anticipating. For me, I didn't much like the staggered approach of overlapping rounds, but maybe I'm alone in that. So if its 5 rounds, I would rather them be 2 months long and no break than a month with a break in between. 2 - Whenever! Holidays are busy for everyone but new year, new season seems to fitting. Can't wait to see what you have in store for us.
  10. With all this recent interest in Socket 3 lately, should it be added here? Socket 7 to its own Hall of Fame?
  11. Okay, I totally misunderstood your OP compared to how Massman set up his rankings, so perhaps I'm still completely confused on the idea. Just as my general opinion though, I honestly had no idea there was a problem with the Team Ranking. It is one thing that I thought was fairly well balanced. You have teams that concentrate on newest generation in the top (Team Russia), teams that concentrate on old school (CP) and teams that balance the two (PURE & OCN).(And yes, I know I'm generalizing a lot) To me, that says its a balanced scoring system. Lots of ways to help out your team's rankings, no matter the member you may join or where their interests may lay. If you are trying to garner interest in team rankings perhaps messing with the scoring system isn't the best route. There is a Team Cup, but the the top 3 teams barely even participate. The why of that, would be the first question I would want answered. Maybe there is just little interest in team play amongst those teams. I can tell you that at OCN there was a great deal of excitement around Team Cup, our Skype channel literally pukes out an ocean of posts every morning when I checked it, and now that its over its down to a dull roar. Just my opinion, of course, but I actually like the current system.
  12. Actually this puts smaller teams at a very large disadvantage. You can see the example in the charts that Massman has put up. When it comes to 3DMark11, OCN is completely uncompetitive, not even showing up on the board. Under the (10) system, OCN moves to 9th, and under the (20) system up to 7th. Under the current system, smaller teams can still be competitive, since no matter how large the competition is, they can only post one score. More members means they have more people trying to get that competitive score but they are limited to one contributing score. For a team like CP, at least in the global portion, it would a large blow. They have only 30 members, PC Games Hardware, has 2000 (granted not all active I'm sure). I can see that for the global portion of the team score it would be heavily biased towards, PC Games Hardware and OCN and other large teams. As you said though, the global portion is already incredibly skewed to the newest hardware. So I guess my question is, why does this new system attract more attention to Team Points? Why would guys running the newest hardware be more interested in team play when they are already receiving a "bonus" to their team scores because they are running the newest generation hardware they currently have?
  13. What? When did this happen? I'm sure there are teams that don't have any activity or competition but that isn't true for every team. I'm fairly certain CP is very active within the team points, and OCN definitely runs competitions directly designed to boost Team Points. http://www.overclock.net/t/1556193/2015-hwbot-team-points-challenge Hardware points are very lean to come by, but Team Points at least can make up for it when benching less popular/cheaper hardware. Those points are great entry level ways for overclockers to get involved. By limiting the amount you can contribute you may run into the same type of wall that new overclockers run into now with the hardware points. They bench every last inch of their new, shiny rig, and then are unable to gain any further points. Adding more points will require a large increase in investment (2nd GPU, etc). Team points are one way they can use any old equipment they scrounge up on the cheap to contribute and feel like they are adding something to their scores. For some, Team Points are all they care about, since they are unwilling or unable to make the massive investments required to move into top spots in the leagues. I also would like to see some examples since I may be misunderstanding how it works, but it looks like a large focus (again) on newest/greatest hardware.
  14. I know devs are people too but is it too early to suggest a whip?
  15. Congratulations to all the teams, especially CP. Good to see such large participation again this year!
  16. I think it will depend on when the chip was released I believe, that might be a good deal harder to decide. Might be by first phone?
  17. ABIT board self-destructed before I could finish up, that is one company that I'll never buy from again Almost a lesson there about not leaving this until the very last night.... Congrats Quickfast, think you might have this one!
  18. BassPlayer was exaggerating slightly, only 420 hour loops. I don't believe its a cheat, just testing revealed the benchmarks Achilles heel but we will see if it will validate or not in the next day or so when I turn off the slowing process. If we are doing this stage for next year's Team Cup can we get the announcement now? With 420 hour loops if I start right now, I can just squeak in the entire benchmark in a year. And I need a UPS. Trodas that screenshot doesn't look valid at all, will that pass moderation?
  19. I was not serious, I actually think the current system is very fair. Selfishly, I would have like to see some portion remain of last 3 years of work but I can't argue with the fairness of the new system.
  20. Only there have been competition points for years and they never used to expire. I have 3 years of competition points that disappeared on me, 3 years of work for nothing. On second thought, I support you, lets go back to the old system.
  21. 5 stages? Maybe you can find 5 different people/teams willing to give a suggestion for a single stage. Or have them submitted to you and pick the best 5?
  22. There will always be people that just refuse to read the rules and waste time but I think this suggestion would be a valuable tool, not only for competitors but the mods to see in one easy spot exactly what the open issues are. Some members, even due to language issues, can't read through 100 forum posts to see if the issue has already been brought, sometimes they don't even know its an issue. There have been .... a few... occassion where the rules for a stage were vague or even contradictory, so I think that this can help highlight these things. Great idea!
  • Create New...