Massman

Please note that it's HIGHLY unlikely that the algorithm for the team ranking will not undergo any changes. So, please, even if you don't like to change at all, make a vote assuming something will change.

As per request, an overview of the different alternatives proposed by HWBOT. I also added a (non-binding) poll that will serve as reference. Note that the voting options have vague names: this is to make sure people actually read the alternatives rather than judge based on a single name. Alternative 1: "PowerTeams" This is the teams league as proposed in the original Rev4 document, where team points are determined by the following variables (following variables describe "powerteam points"): - best team score per ranking (global/hardware) - amount of participating teams (determines weight) => Team Points = SUM(PowerTeam points) + : completely removes the benefits from hardware sharing on a team level - : reduces the 'team spirit' as newcomers have very little to add to the team total Alternative 2: "Two Leagues" This suggestion came up after a few posts containing -ehem- positive criticism. It basically separates the team competition in two different leagues: one that uses the current algorithm and one that uses the algorithm proposed in the original document. + : current team spirit untouched - : hardware sharing still incredibly beneficial - : two leagues makes the working of the bot a lot less transparent Alternative 3: "PowerTeam and User Points" (detailed explanation on why PowerTeam ranking is a good thing) The latest suggested solution combining the two leagues of alternative 2 into one single algorithm, ranking teams based on the following variables: - Team quality: -- best team score in ranking (global/hardware) -- amount of participating teams (weight) - Member quality: -- % of global, hardware and competition points attributed to team total. Example was worked out here: link => Team Points = SUM(PowerTeam points) + [sUM(user points) / 10] + : illegal hardware sharing a lot less beneficial + : user effort continues to help the team + : one league is more transparent than two - : the absolute value of a single score for the team decreases Alternative 4: "MaxPointsRanking" Another way of reducing the effect of hardware sharing. As example: Max(GTX480,3DMark03,1xGPU) = 42.8p => Accumulated member points for 1x GTX480 3DMark03 =< 42.8 Looking at this ranking, it would mean that the following people are contributing to the team's total: - Team Finland: SF3D and Maggaa - Hardwareluxx: Benchbros and suicidephoenix - OCClub: Smoke and Slamms - ... => Team points = [sUM( MAX(effective team points in ranking, max team points in ranking) ] + : reduces the benefits of hardware sharing - : not everyone on the team will contribute to the team total - : very, very complex algorithm Alternative 5: "Percentage Users" Slightly different variant of alternative 3, where the team ranking is a following the same algorithm as the current league, but all non-best submissions of the team are downrated to a certain percentage. The best submission counts for the full 100%, the other submissions for (for instance) 10%. => Team points = SUM(points of all best team scores) + [ SUM(points of all non-best team scores) / 10] + : everyone contributes to the team total - : big difference in contribution between best and non-best score of team - : reduce effect of hardware sharing on a very small scale (see example: http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=73945&postcount=11)

Yes. Watercooling

I'll open a separate topic about the teams league later today

I started my reply with a question on purpose. For me, your feeling is negative ... because you don't feel positive about it. I just want to find out if that negative feeling comes from the change itself or the problems you have with the new proposed algorithm. If it's the latter, I want to know what is wrong with the new proposed algorithm as it's possible I have overlooked something vital.

Nice!

Are you saying that, in contrary to scientific research, you consider the possibility that another cause than what YOU think is giving you negative feelings, non-existent? Of course I'm not saying that per definition disagreeing equals misguidance. What I'm saying is that people have to consider the possibility that the sole fact of things changing might also play a role. The part of your negative feelings caused by the aversion of change (which is something present in most humans) should, however, not play a role in the evaluation of a new system. In other words: a new system can be OK, regardless of you liking ANY change. You can look at it differently. User 'a' and 'b' contribute equally and the team gets extra points for 'some' best submission. Are you discouraged because someone else provided a score that gains the team even more points than before?

I will try to answer with a simplified ranking system. 1st - 50 (OCA) 2nd - 40 (BTU) 3rd - 30 (BTU) 4th - 20 (BTU) 5th -10 (BTU) 6th - 8 (OCA) 7th - 6 (BTU) 8th - 4 (OCA) 9th - 2 (OCA) 10th - 1 (OCA) Current algorithm dictates that from this particular hardware ranking (that is: specific CPU and benchmark), the teams receive: - OCA: 50 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 65p - BTU: 40 + 30 + 20 + 10 + 6 = 106p To translate this to the proposed system, you need two very important things: 1) The percentage that goes from the personal total to the teams total is preliminary as we will have to find a propper balance. 20% might be totally off. 2) The "PowerTeam" points will come from a separate team ranking, where the weight of the ranking (how 'competitive' the ranking is) will be determined by the amount of different teams that are competing and NOT by the amount of overclockers are competing. In practical terms, it means that the '50' in above mentioned basic ranking is NOT the amount of "PowerTeam" points as the amount of participating teams is lower than the amount of participating overclockers. Let's assume a 1/2 ratio of teams/overclockers in this ranking. Then: - OCA: 25 + (65 / 5) = 38p - BTU: 20 + (106 / 5) = 41,2p The interesting part is, however, when you add a third team. Being 11th on the original ranking meant: very few points for the team. Possibly due to hardware sharing (same CPU, same benchmark, same top scores), so possibly annoy people. In the proposed system, however, it means that even if the users don't get that much points, the team would still be 3rd in the team ranking and get 15p (relative to other teams, a lot better). Now add a fourth and a fifth and a sixth team ...

But sometimes people attribute their feelings to the wrong causes. In this case, it might very well be 'change' that is causing a lot of people to panick and complain, rather than the impact of the new algorithm. A good example of this was the change from Rev2 to Rev3. At first people were screaming death and murder, but after a few weeks the feeling changed from negative to positive because people started to understand the implications of the system and like it. The initial hate towards the algorithm was not because of the algorithm and how it worked, but towards the change. I'm trying to show you that the proposed system is actually the same, with an added bonuses for good overall teams. You can, for instance, also see it as: (Current team points / 5) + "PowerTeam points" So, we take an equal amount away from every single person, from every single team and give more points to teams that are higher ranked across the board. In absolute terms, it might seem that you points decrease in value a lot, but in relative terms that isn't the case.

That is quite over-dramatising the suggested alternative solution. The key element in the last suggestion was that the team ranking will be focussing more on the capability of a team to reach high ranks across the board, rather than ranking high in specific hardware categories. As an example, it will be highly rewarding to have high team ranks in all LGA775 categories and less rewarding to have 10 people of the same team in the top-15 of the 8800GTX 3DMark06 ranking. In the meantime, improving your own totals (no limitation on global or hardware) will also benefit the team's total, be it not for the full 100% as it is now. This means: more benching, or pushing harder for the same amount of points. As a sidenote: in the future, HWBOT will feature more benchmarks that will for points. A system where not every single point goes to the team total is actually much more futureproof than the system we are currently using.

We have to separate two things here: 1) The ideal world where no one shares hardware and no one complains. This world actually exists, but comes at a big price: no individual league and a teams league designed as described in the opening post. So, only the best scores count towards the total. 2) The real world where cheaters exist and, moreover, where people THINK cheaters exist. If you want an individual and team league where every single score that was submit to the team counts, you need to start making compromises. Either you accept that hardware sharing goes on (and once in a while someone gets caught) and don't moan about it or you find a way to address the issue and try to downsize it as much as possible without totally destroying the team spirit. I, for one, am sick and tired of having the see people complain about hardware sharing and/or doing it themselves, so I want a Team ranking which discourages hardware sharing more than it does now. Compromises, people. Compromises.

Only clear picture I can find of him

You mean that 26k at 1250Mhz?

Hey guys, Just got the message that CJ (Cyril Pelupessy), working for MSI Europe as technical PR officer, passed away last night. Some overclockers might remember him from the MSI MOA 2010 European final in Paris. Only met him once (at MOA EU), he seemed like a good guy. Normally, he was going to join the European teams to the WW final in Taipei as well ... :-/ Taken from his facebook space: Was in the hospital since 28th of August, apparently. RIP .

Well, it is true that the Inflection Point has allowed me to reach positions in competitions that I never reached before

Mean Machine was so kind to share the GTX460 Cyclone Vgpu mod on Facebook:

Haha. I used OC Inflection in the two last WW finals and got 12th and 11th

You had an event at home? That's the only way I can explain this crazy score :-) Well done!

Two prizes GTX480 Lightning for winner of the extreme stage GTX460 Hawk for winner of the 25°C stage Overall ranking is just for fun .

To push even harder than before.

It's not a problem to submit old results. Do note: exposing your old records might cause other people to want to hunt 'em down and break them

Re-submit?

Oh? 1140Mhz doesn't seem to be THAT much on liquid nitrogen?

http://hwbot.org/community/submission/1061408_massman_3dmark_vantage___performance_geforce_gtx_480_13276_marks

For reference: Stage 1 WR - http://hwbot.org/community/submission/1014090_evocarlos_pcmark_2005_celeron_lga775_440_14442_marks Stage 2 WR - http://hwbot.org/community/submission/979243_nick.ua_wprime_32m_sempron_140_24sec_390ms Stage 3 WR - http://hwbot.org/community/submission/983388_parcifal_3dmark_vantage___performance_geforce_9800_gt_6791_marks I'm not 100% sure of the last one, but ... maybe 95%