K404

Just had a think 1/ Personal totals and raw rankings are (I believe) still the main reason why people share hardware, so this will stop very little 2/ for the sake of arguement, say one team dominates the top 5 of a popular ranking. 49.8 38.7 33.3 29.5 26.9 One guy contributes 49.8 points towards the team, next guy contributes... 3.8, 3.3 etc.... It's still not much of a motivator

you understand my concern about team spirit, but my interpretation of Idea 3 was wrong If say... 10 guys are in one category, it's a bit harsh to give 9 of them 10% of their rankings points, but its better than nothing A logistics question... how will all of this be displayed on the rankings page for each category (technically a question for all the ideas)? If a ranking is a real mix of teams, then the points beside each score could confuse a lot of newcomers

From 1st post: (option 3) - Team quality: -- best team score in ranking (global/hardware) mix-up or have I mis-interpreted?

I have trouble supporting an idea that will make new guys feel useless to a team. They're the next-gen. The way we treat them & introduce them now will (hopefully) help show them how overclocking & benching should be We're.... parents and while im not great with people, I cant tell my "kid" they're useless

I think I like option 5 "the most." 1 & 3 are out for me because they both feature the "best score per ranking" idea. I dont like the idea of two leagues if one features the original Rev 4 algorithm (best score per ranking again?!) and I dont really get Option 4 Not voted yet though aside..... because you didn't give any options to vote against any particular idea or to vote in favour of "option 6" or no change, could you add an option along the lines of "I do not like any of the given options, but am aware of the ideas and care about the direction of HWB?" If someone votes for something, it can be interpreted as an endorsement of it. If people dont want to put their name to something and voting numbers are low, that will raise more questions

I can just imagine the endorsement comments now Not quite the same as for the F1EE Petri... you'll have to start paying them to say nice things

Mobo and SPD tab isn't really going to help, sadly... the other drawback I can think of... where will that info go in a screenshot? Juggling tabs over and over again to get all the (currently) necessary info in, whilst holding temps is bad enough Thats taken on a 19" widescreen monitor FYI I can think of quite a few 3D runs between users where the mobo, CPU, RAM, timings, speeds and voltages are the same.... the GPU is the only possible difference. Mobo and SPD tabs aren't going to help, especially as neither board nor RAM are included in hardware sharing rules

To make it legal while we're trying to think of a solution would be disasterous. The damage (and scores) done in the meantime could never be removed in the future because they were compliant with HWB rules at the time.

Not in Dinos mind :p

Is this what you really want to allow to happen? Really? I will do everything I can to stop this being a legal and allowed situation. It would NOT be good for benching. How can anyone think that being beaten over and over again by the same one card is good for the hobby or the poor sod whos underneath it all? If anyone thinks this is GOOD.... please quit benching. Please.

Thankyou I believe that hardware sharing is done for the individual benefit more than the team benefit. Im not sure how to improve the chance of catching people, but I got a couple ideas for punishments.... Punish the team as well as the individual- force the hardware shareers to think about more than just themselves. Point penalty? % of total points? 10x the total number of hardware points involved in the sharing? If a hardware sharer is not given a perma-ban, when their ban is lifted, apply a penalty to all their future results? 10% off? Ban them from that GPU class forever? Hardware share an 8800GTX? Ban them from G80 entirely? Ban them from PCI-E nVidia cards? etc... Force them to a "does not participate in rankings" position for a further 6 months? Add a tag to their username or profile "has previously been banned for XYZ" ?

Had another thought.... The one score per category, per team... It'll put even more emphasis on LN2 benching and cherry hardware..... if only 1 score per category can help the team, there will be pressure from the team to make that a gold.

I have the same problem. 169.21 didnt work for me

"benchmarks must always be launched using the shortcuts found in the installation directory." This tweak requires renaming the .exe, which *could* be interpreted as a breach of this rule, it also helps open up the browser tweak in PCMark05, which is why i'm asking for clarification

If it wasn't acceptable, it's easy to spot W7/Vista without this tweak is a writeoff

Is it ok & legal to rename the aquamark.exe in Vista + W7 to get a non-crap score? There was some technicality debate over its legality wasn't there? I'm aware a LOT of scores have been submitted using it....

Sorry George, I disagree with you AND Petri..... In the context of benching teams, a team is only as strong as the depth and selection of members it has. Nothing to do with the strongest or weakest member. A bench team that has a member with 5K points wont necessarily be No.1 A bench team that has a member with 0 points wont necessarily be last.

I wondered this during F1 OC..... arent they all Trademarked names? UFC, Champions league, Premier League etc..... ?

Extreme Overclocker League.... EOL I kid!!! If we can also avoid the letter "x", that would be awesome. Its horribly overused. I think the XFX 9800GTX+ XXX was the worst.

Well.... in the lack of clear proof, I wouldnt expect HWB to be able to make a firm decision that could be incorrect. You've listened to my concerns over a few members before, but there was no clear proof. I'm... frustrated, but I dont blame HWB. I would say (to everyone) think someone is hardware sharing? Keep your concerns quiet for as long as possible. With comfort comes complacency and eventually they will make a mistake THEN, it will be easy for HWB to make a decision

I suggested it earlier... what about punishing the team as well, when hardware sharing is discovered? It would force the user to think about more than just their own gain. I admit, the team is not responsible for, nor in control of, the individuals in the team. It would only work if the user cares about the team they bench for

Vince hand-picked the PURE teams, basically from all the "applicants" then closed team membership when he had the lineup he wanted. He chose from a bunch of well-motivated, generally well-funded guys. If Team membership was open, he'd have hundreds of hangers on who dont bench so much but like carrying the Team PURE name....it would sound great when approaching companies for support **Technically** Team PUREs approach has come in for indirect criticism after I posted up my idea about a casual team leaderboard based on size. They've deliberately limited their intake to high-scoring members. I dont mind any of this though. They have a system that works for them and everyone involved in the team knows the deal.

If its in a forum of people who know the deal, it could work. Either have bench team members on rotation (because not everyone can bench all the time, or needs time off etc) or agree on timescales for big pushes and enter the group above. No points involved, just a leaderboard organised by team size

I've not thought this out....... Based on my previous post, what about leagues based on team size? It doesnt need to be how the best teams are decided, just as a banded search field so small teams can compare to other small teams etc....

To be disapassionate... who cares if a team only has a few members? Thats their problem. Recruit people..... everyone starts off small. No-ones gonna change the layout of the Premiership so that... hmmmm..... Macclesfield Town can compete with Man United on a more level standing