HWBOT Rev.4 - The Plan.

[der8auer]

I think Intel, AMD and Nvidia might have something to determine what CPU or GPU is being used exactly, but the question is whether they want to help the overclocking community by allowing 3rd-party access to this serial number.

 

Also, think about the consequences: if HWBOT stores this information, it can also determine what CPU has been overclocked, so which specific CPU violates the warranty agreement. Even though we don't have any evil scheme, you can imagine that if Intel or AMD could lay their hands on this information a lot of people would not get an RMA from overclocking any more.

 

Banning hardware sharing completely can only be done if we make it legal, but as mentioned before, that also comes with a lot of complications. Maybe the bitching about hardware sharing would reduce, but the bitching would just go to a different area. Think about it: the concept of hardware sharing rules was invented here at HWBOT to address HWBOT-specific issues. The were placed in action because users complained about it.

 

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards an adjustment of the current Teams League to address the hardware sharing. Not as strict as suggested in the opening post, but enough to make hardware sharing a lot less beneficial. If hardware sharing is less beneficial and the punishment remains the same, it might discourage people from doing so because reward/cost is lower.

 

Okay you're right at that point. Damed

 

 

Please feel free to comment on this. Do note: I'm looking for compromises between community and staff .

 

Yes Realy appreciate this!!

 

 

The point is: I'm pretty sure that the cheaters will continue the sharing because most of them only do for personal interest Unfortunately i don't see a solution for this problem. To allow the sharing is no option imo!

 

So i think you should keep the Team-Ranking like it is today and add an extra ranking like the power ranking.

[Massman]

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.

[Thor941]

Sorry , I haven't read the whole thread but what if you totally separate both rankings?

- individual ranking

- team ranking, only best score counts

- if you are in the individual rankings, you can't be in the team one and vice versa

- each guy will still be part of a team/community but won't take part in the team point total if he don't want to or if the captain decides.

 

Edit : and you can limit the team to let's say 20 guys

Edited October 5, 2010 by Thor941

[Sweet]

Compromises, people. Compromises.

 

You got my commitment and agree to this (you know this), but I also want "punishments" are over for when you check this unfair .

"Crime and Punishment" is likely to have a deliberate action

 

Sw

Edited October 5, 2010 by Sweet

[Linuxfan]

Every single score submission would still add points to the team's total, but the benefit from using the same hardware would be a lot lower (because not 100% of score points go to team's total).

 

Please feel free to comment on this. Do note: I'm looking for compromises between community and staff .

Sounds better to me though I don't know that it sounds perfect. I like every hardware point to count to team total just wish people wouldn't hardware share to cheat the system.

[Bustah]

so if a person blames or accuses someone of hw sharing but has no solid proof to back it up make a penalty for constant whingers. if thats the right way to describe them, myself and many others are upset that all the relationships we have built over the years as a TEAM is now potentially going to change or be compromised because some fools decide to share hw/ share screenshots or constantly whine about ppl cheating [those with no proof]/guesswork]

 

The spirit of overclocking I feel is dying and will not get better imo by restricting team members ability to contribute to their team as they can currently do.

 

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.

[Eeky NoX]

I sadly follow your words BustaH It turned into a such mess that nothing could improve the situation I guess...

I bet on a serious demotivation for masses until now. What a loss!

Edited October 5, 2010 by Eeky NoX

[Massman]

so if a person blames or accuses someone of hw sharing but has no solid proof to back it up make a penalty for constant whingers. if thats the right way to describe them, myself and many others are upset that all the relationships we have built over the years as a TEAM is now potentially going to change or be compromised because some fools decide to share hw/ share screenshots or constantly whine about ppl cheating [those with no proof]/guesswork]

 

The spirit of overclocking I feel is dying and will not get better imo by restricting team members ability to contribute to their team as they can currently do.

 

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.

[Bustah]

I don't see how its over dramatising? its how a lot of people feel pieter. If I learned one thing in life, you cannot tell people how they should feel about something. I'm not the only one.

 

anyway Hwbot will decide to do want they want to do, people will either carry on or do something else, its as simple as that.

[knopflerbruce]

What I don't fully understand is why alot of people will quit benching just because of one thread (although posted on several forums). The discussion is about PURE, HOT (to some degree) and BZ, if some other guy who isn't directly involved loses his motivation over this, then I'm pretty sure that that person wouldn't be doing this for several more years anyway.

 

If you're hardcore enough these things don't matter.

[Bustah]

who said anything about quitting?

[Eeky NoX]

Agree man but all those BS are boring at last

I remember a such mess in our french community a few years ago, and we lost alot of members back in the days...

 

We'll see and I'll keep on doing my job the same proper way that I ever did (I need to be back asap although! itchy itchy ^^)

 

Edit: @BustaH: it was about my few statements I guess. Just because it seems redundant to me.

[Massman]

I don't see how its over dramatising? its how a lot of people feel pieter. If I learned one thing in life, you cannot tell people how they should feel about something. I'm not the only one.

 

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.

[Hondacity]

just an example...

 

team oca and team benchtek...will have an i920 competition ..and double purpose to get lots of points @ hwbot.

50 members joining in....using the latest x58 boards....getting alot of hwbot points..

 

question:

 

for two teams only the best score from each team will reflect for team points?

[Bustah]

@ massman. So basically you are saying if people don't agree with you, their feelings are misguided? it took a lot of time and effort and money for some folks to recover to their previous rankings when rev3 came in, many benefited on day one, others did not. they lost a fair whack, lets get that in perspective. btw im not here speaking in relation to my own team or how it may or may not be affected by rev 4. i'm speaking for the guy who [which is actually the majority] cant afford to bench that much saves up and works hard to buy decent hardware to bench to help his team whatever team that may be. if that ability or possibility is taken away then he has little motivation to be in a team. hwbot is a great platform for overclockers we all know that but this one thing is going to affect the feeling of 'community' in a big way, that's obvious to see regardless of the cheats or whingers or whatever you want to call them.

 

@ Honda city, thats correct, but also [this is the part that I don.t like] two members of the same team in their own houses sepatately, bench the same [popular] hardware user 'a'

gets a better score than user 'b', user 'a' score is contributed to the team total, user 'b' wasted a lot of his time and money in terms of working towards contributing to his team, aside from a token percentage of his 'potential' points tally.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Bustah

[Massman]

just an example...

 

team oca and team benchtek...will have an i920 competition ..and double purpose to get lots of points @ hwbot.

50 members joining in....using the latest x58 boards....getting alot of hwbot points..

 

question:

 

for two teams only the best score from each team will reflect for team points?

 

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 ...

[knopflerbruce]

who said anything about quitting?

 

I thougt I read something in that direction, but if I was wrong, I apologize.

 

@ new discussion: I guess the essence is that the best entry will count the most, the others will count less, but still something.

[Massman]

@ massman. So basically you are saying if people don't agree with you, their feelings are misguided?

 

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.

 

@ Honda city, thats correct, but also [this is the part that I don.t like] two members of the same team in their own houses sepatately, bench the same [popular] hardware user 'a'

gets a better score than user 'b', user 'a' score is contributed to the team total, user 'b' wasted a lot of his time and money in terms of working towards contributing to his team, aside from a token percentage of his 'potential' points tally.

 

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?

[Bustah]

Lol pieter, you answered my question with a question, very good. for you what I say is 'negative' because it doesn't agree with you [on this point at least] your sterile/clinical outlook on peoples points of view is interesting. hwbot is a robot per say not the people that use it remember, they function differently and are a little more complex.

[Massman]

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.

[|ron]

Mmmhh I'll put it simple and straight: on the balance we have on one hand, points and hwsharing, on the other hand, less points for the teams and practically hw sharing reduced to something unconvenient.

For me the balance points straight to reduce or eliminate hw sharing, a plague, not "a thing that only some dumbass is doing"...

The complaints are about teams with a lot of points that will go away, in the same categories: this would penalyze also the top ranking guys as they compete usually in the same "arena", eg 980x+gtx480, as only the best score will count and the second, third etc will only count in part, for example 20 or 30% of the score they would gain with hwbot rev3.

So, everybody is affected by the loss of points, even the ln2 guys who will compete even inside the team, as it should be, I think.

 

So, I can't predict very well how much team points we'll have with rev4, but I'm waiting for the "beta" on another server (as you did from rev2 to rev3, if I well remember) to see the changes etc...

[der8auer]

Pieter, could you make a short summary of all different "versions" of Team-Rankings?

 

Atm i'm a bit confused what we're talking about

[Massman]

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

[V2-V3]

* I have not yet read the entire 61 page thread*

on the topic of hardware sharing

 

one idea is for the bot to require serial numbers to be submitted for GPU's and CPU's to check for sharing, a picture(s) may be required as well. of course one could have a trust issue and fake a serial number, this is where manufactures could offer assistance in validating legitimate serial numbers.

 

A compromise could be serial numbers required for top 20 validation

 

a few key bonuses:

 

1. Manufacturers would be interested in the quantitative information

 

2. Hardware sharing could be eliminated with no change to team/individual point ranking

 

3. this would also put a stop to illegal hardware use, for example stolen/black market CPU's or GPU's. Non retail ES samples that were never intended for use outside of the manufacturer.

 

 

this is not a full proof plan there are flaws but has some benefit and helps meet the demand of the community.

Edited October 25, 2010 by V2-V3

[Massman]

Problem with serial numbers is that it doesn't solve hardware sharing, it just forces people to buy (or find) more than one sample. Eg: a team has 10 samples of GTX480 and sends around just one 1.3G sample for LN2 results. You will have 10 serials, but it's still hardware sharing.

 

As long as you know someone who works in a HW store you can also use serials from sold hardware pieces.