Massman

What about "Fighting for Ultimate Warrior Samurai Ninja Knight Battle League"?

FYI. HWBOT tries to also involved new projects like the Unigine benchmark. All the time that goes into that kind of project also costs time and money. Even if we manage to get break-even with membership fees, which is highely unlikely, we'd still have no budget to take on other projects.

The hardware sharing issues is not so much a problem of workload, but more an issue of accusation and distrust. No one here is willing to give HWBOT full power to do anything we want. This means we can't remove scores or users without propper motivation. So, if someone accuses another one of cheating and then asks HWBOT to do something about it, we can either take action and piss off the user/team of the bannee, or piss of the user/team of the accusator. The issue is also that when dealing with accusations, some team moderators go in self-protect mode and try to back their member up to a point where discussing is no longer possible. It's nearly impossible to find 100% proof of hardware sharing (mostly only indirect indications), and it becomes even harder if team moderators and team members are starting to 'fight' the 'machine' HWBOT.

DISCLAIMER: HWBOT is in no way planning to charge the community for our services! The idea of paying subscription for HWBOT was suggested by some users from the community. This is just a poll to see how many users would actually put in money for HWBOT and to check whether this is a viable solution or not.

Banning people for life just never works. Maybe we could start with the concept: users accept that hwbot will not make a move unless there's actual proof of hardware sharing. So, no longer the "I think they cheat, now HWBOT has to fix all"

The reason why we haven't done any cooling-type based competition uptill now is that it's very difficult to verify the exact cooling used, or even sometimes to classify what type of cooling was used. Chilled liquid, subzero air cooling, triple-stage cascades ... these are types of cooling that fall in between the existing ones. Since it's very difficult to make a clear split-up and there seems to be a very large distrust between communities (examples enough in this thread), it's very likely that there will be people taking advantage of the difficulties. Or people will accuse others of doing this, even if it's untrue. The EL is more of an experimental league to see if it's at all possible to have this kind of league in an online environment. Before we apply the same system to teams and split-up in even more leagues, we need to test it out first. As for the teams league: it's always possible to add slacker limitations than 'best score / team'. We could limit to: - best score per cooling type - best score per cpu/vga(/mainboard) combination Of course, that will not make hardware sharing a lot less beneficial.

The solution to 389 posts of "you're an evil corporate bitch" is quite easy: - Team League = as it is now - new PowerTeam League = only best scores count This way you can see the team thrust in the normal league and the true quality (assuming quality equals higher score) in the PowerTeam League.

There's one ASUS card that has fast memory chips; it's possible it's the 512MB card, though.

Who says HWBOT would look completely different without manufacturers backing us up? As I said before: none of the manufacturers have designed or pushed any of the features in rev4. They only got involved when for the split-up between XOL and UFL because it directly involves them. Apart from that ... nothing.

If it's a fact that manufacturer support equals certain bending over, does this mean that BenchTec UK is bending over for: If yes, I have to rethink the value of the reviews. If not, you will have to rethink some of your principles/.

Yeah we have that. "right-click" and "save".

We've had the donation button up for so long now ... what we have incoming is appreciated, but it doesn't even come close to covering even the server costs. It seems that a situation of mass-hysteria has been created (i also sense some team moderators are making their team go nuts) and this for no apparent reason. As said, I'm not going to ask the community for money. You can all use this service, but you're not paying for it. Manufacturers are using YOUR results (no matter where you post them, by the way) for marketing and research, ergo they should be the ones paying for the development. Very simple.

Obviously they will be addressed and discussed ... you don't need to pay any money for that. All I ask for is that instead of producing random crap, people would just post the point of issue. No offense to those that actually did come forward with a decent reply . //edit: the reason why we spoke with manufacturers first is because the relationship between us and manufacturers is not as long-standing as the one we have with the community. Usually, we can get decent feedback from the community quite rapidly, whereas with manufacturers it's sometimes a bit more difficult. Also, the eta was set at 2011, which is like in 3 months if everything goes REALLY fast. It's quite likely it's going to take a bit longer to actually put it in production (designer, etc). It's not as if we just launched it and said 'here you go' ...

Ok BazX, you're also on my ignore-list.

You seem to fail to grasp the complexity of the situation. We don't just want to work with manufacturers to get more money, we also want to work with them so we can guide them within the overclocking community. If there's an actual business relationship, there's a way to explain WHY the community doesn't like MFCs screwing up competitions, for instance. As I said before: ignoring the manufacturers's wish to use overclocking for marketing is the wrong move. It's important that they actually understand what's going on in the community. Just to give a small example: MFCs have a hard time understanding that the overclocking competitions with high-end hardware are less interesting than competitions with cheap stuff. Or that it's not really motivating to get a R5870 as prize if you need the same model to compete. Again, we're working not FOR manufacturers, but WITH them .

The thing is ... you shouldn't. Not many people realize this, but if it wasn't for the three MFCs stepping up and support the development, it's very likely that HWBOT would not have been up anymore. The running costs just kept on growing and investments of previous years never got covered. In the end, it's thanks to the three corporations on the front page that this site still exists . If you want to be angry at anyone, it should be those MFCs that think it's okay to use this site for marketing and research, but have no interest in supporting the development. Those are the ones that make the financial situations of the site a problem, not the ones that support us. Also, I don't really understand all the hatred towards corporations to begin with. Everyone needs to understand that for most of the hardware manufacturers, extreme overclocking is something very new. This means that things get fucked up sometimes (competitions for instance); the important thing is to learn from the mistakes and try to avoid them in the future. That's precisly the reason why with this revision I've pro-actively enquired the partners what they think about it: that's right - hwbot invited the manufacturers to talk about the next revision. Not the other way around. If we want to improve the overclocking game, we need to take into account that both manufacturers as individuals are interested in playing. Excluding either is pointless, therefore we can only embrace both. In other words: try to find a solution that both parties can be happy with. I can take a lot of shit from a lot of people, but when I see people claim that the only reason things change is to 'make more money' ... well, it pretty much breaks me in half and makes me think whether it's worth to put this much time/effort in trying to build bridges ...

Awaiting October 2nd. Untill then: bye!

Banned because he keeps insinuating our only aim is to make money. Sorry, I do not sacrifice this much hours a week to this project for this kind of paycheck just so people could rant on how we sell ourselves. Okay. Done.

User ranking: - MAIN RANKINGS -- UFL: pro's and super-seeded freelance -- XOL: ~ current oc league without above -- EL: ambient cooling people - SIDE RANKINGS -- Competition ranking: points of comps, also affect XOL in small way -- hardware masters: as now -- achievement ranking: if we iron out bugs Team ranking: - MAIN RANKING -- Teams league: best submission of user in team is of value - SIDE RANKING -- Team 'hardware masters'? ~ hw masters, but for teams ----------------------- Maybe many of you don't realize how much stress the hardware sharing is putting on the staff. Most of the time, we have rumours and accusations, but no solid proof. Since the scores are not removed, people accuse us of covering up all the time, but in fact we're just trying not to make things too dictatorial in terms of moderating. Without decent proof, there's nothing we can do if we want to give a legit reason. This issue gives us a lot of troubles, because we want to make the competition as enjoyable as possible and instead of that it's just causing more troubles. So, maybe for you the price is too big, but for us it might be justifiable. That being said ... it's not a good idea either to 'hurt' the smalltime overclockers (those who just bench something they already have) either. It's not really hurting anyone if you're agreeing who will be doing what within the team, but might not be cool for people who just started overclocking.

Okay, I'm done. I'll listen to criticism, but not blatant "you do it all for the money"-accusations. You have no clue of what the financial status of HWBOT is, so this is out of line. See you next week.

It's because you're ASUS fanboy . J/K.

Yeah. Kinda defeats the 'making hardware sharing non-beneficial', though.

Sorry, you're right on that. I don't have powerpoint on this laptop, so couldn't change it. The idea of not giving prizes to people who get hardware is similar to what GBT did in the H55N: it's already a prize that you get the free hardware to bench. People who spend money to buy the card should be the ones getting the prizes. For MOA/GOOC there's no advantage of getting free hardware since everyone starts from the same level: hardware received on competition. Therefore, it's not problem for UFL to get prize money in that competition. Sorry, I should've changed it .

Just a random thought: How would you guys feel to have a similar league for Teams as there is Hardware Masters for users? A league that only takes hardware points into account, where people can push the team forward even if they don't have anything near the best hardware. Only hardware points as well ... not another 'latest greatest' league. Main focus would still be the 'quality' league (as suggested in ppt), so this would be side-ranking for HWBOT, but probably main ranking for a lot of people?

Hm, maybe it's a bit unclear how user rankings and team rankings work exactly. In the user rankings, everyone will still get a ranking. No matter how much team members have submitted in the league, your best score will still receive a ranking/points. The team rankings will be a lot like this month's september challenge, both in terms of concept as visualisation. So, if you put up a new team's high, your entry will not be seen as 'user for team' but really 'team score'. The idea is to have two separate rankings for user and teams, and both having their own weight count (the more teams participate, the more weight). First of all, it's not always easier to bench with free gear. Yes, it is if you go to public live events, but when you receive something at home manufacturers (marketing people who send you stuff) expect it to be alive after the session. Kill too much free gear and you'll not get any in the future. Secondly, in no way we attempt to regulate hardware flow from manufacturers to the community. This means that we're not going to check up closely on what's sent and what's not; or, in other words, MFCs can still send some board to an XOL guy. The UFL was made to force the corporate overclockers into a different league as well as give those people who have great access to join in there as well. A single-person team will not be effective. Unless you're benching in all imaginable categories yourself ... As many points as possible = 300, in the current design. High-end new hardware = less people; mainstream older hardware = more people. We want more people to be able to compete at the top of the ranking (or sub-top), not less. Is it wrong to make two changes to support the same concept? Is it only allowed to make one change? Obviously that's something we don't support ... no idea why you'd hold that against us. Try to understand how rankings work currently and you'll see that loopholing rules is too beneficial. There's a reason why this hardware sharing topic is being brought up so many times. Incorrect. The small teams with good scores all across the board will be able to compete with huge teams that have average scores across the board. Okay ... 1) No. If you're UFL, you cannot be XOL/EL. People who are not UFL have an XOL and EL ranking. 2) Yes, you're always part of a leaderboard 3) Yes. I cannot give a fixed number as of now. We're also considering to change the current 'you have to compete in all benchmarks' to 'your X best submissions count to personal total', which probably affects the balance as well. 4) No. Not in the new design. What does help is, however, to have multiple people pushing in different hw rankings with the same card. Eg: one does 01, another one pushes for Vantage etc. It also helps if more than one person has a 7900GTX, so people can share findings how to increase the score or try to beat each other to improve the team score. The issue is that MEMBERS don't trust MEMBERS and expect us to clean up everything they consider cheating. Pretty obvious has never been a valid criteria for removing results due to hardware sharing. That is the whole issue ... if people accuse others of sharing, everything must be removed ASAP, but if they get accused themselves it's as if the whole world is against them . This is a valid point. One thing we were playing with (concept) was to have a similar split up for teams as we had for users where one team has both an Xtreme part and an ambient part. This situation is a bit more complex coding-wise, but not completely undoable. Another idea would be to have subteams and larger 'mother' teams. This would be the opposite of the current strategy of having one huge team and trying to enlist as many people as possible. Something like: - OC Forums -- OC Forums LN2 Boys -- OC Forums "we don't need no liquid nitrogen" -- OC Forums "I like them old and cheap" But that makes things more complicated as well.