Teams League Rev.4

[Massman]

(CLICK for LARGER VERSION)

 

Full version

[Moose83]

I vote for option 2. I think this is probaply the best!

[voidn]

Interesting, THANKS. Now people can get a feel for the proposed changes. Would 10x team points in a category with only 2 results, allow teams to point whore in exotic hardware?

[Massman]

Interesting, THANKS. Now people can get a feel for the proposed changes. Would 10x team points in a category with only 2 results, allow teams to point whore in exotic hardware?

 

Not if we do the 10x at the very end of the calculation.

 

What I wanted to show with that 10x calculation is that a newly proposed algorithm can be made 'better' by artificially increasing the points. It's not because everyone gains points that the system is in fact better, but it's perceived as better. In fact, the relative standing of the teams remains exactly the same.

 

In the rankings where there are very few results, the PowerTeam points will be lower than in competitive rankings, just like it is now in the user rankings. I'm pretty sure we'll have to work with a min_weight variable to make sure the PowerTeam points aren't totally meaningless (eg: always 2p if your team is first), but that's something we need to work out once we get an entire calculation done.

[Patch]

 

FYI, people voting for Alternative 2 are basically saying that currently there's no problem at all. Given the latest complain-threads and -articles, I find that very strange.

 

You shouldn't find that strange at all.

 

Complainers are highly visible and motivated. Even if they represent a tiny fraction of users as a whole.

 

Again, I vote to leave everything as it is. One league. Free-for-all benching where everyone competes against everyone. "Fair" or not, it's the most fun.

 

But I'm just ONE guy here for the good times.

[drnip]

I only remember a handful of people complaining about the way it is now. Those are the same talking about hardware sharing as well. I would vote just leave it alone but that option isn't available unless you are considering "... oh, and also, I don't like changes" that option. I can't tell though as the last option is either worded weird or have some slick message hidden behind it. I like changes just not this change. A simple "no" or "leave it the way it is" would have been sufficient. Definitely not voting for Alternative #2 even though it is the closet thing to what we have. Can't because it has the latest proposal clinging on to it. Again, my 2 cents.

Edited October 6, 2010 by drnip

[MaJ0r]

I voted option 6 becouse I dislike many changes and it's hard to understand without vodka like S_A_V said ) And too hard is understanding this alternatives for people who don't know english very well.

[ARandomOWL]

I find it hard to understand any of the alternatives

[K404]

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

Edited October 7, 2010 by K404

[Massman]

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

 

4 is indeed too difficult both in terms of understanding and coding-wise. Shouldn't be there, but is there anyways.

 

Option 5 and option 3 give, in practical terms, pretty much the same results, but option 5 is more prone to hardware sharing as displayed here: http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=73945&postcount=11

 

Many people seem to have issues with the 'best score per ranking'-concept. Maybe I need to describe it differently: in essence, we would have a separate tab for user and team results. Whereas the current system allows users, through hardware sharing, to take away points from your team, a system with the PowerTeam points still gives the team what it deserves based on the team ranking. In practical terms: even if there are 25 overclockers of the same team in front of you, if you are able to make your team second in the PowerTeam ranking, your team will receive a fair amount of points. Instead of getting points for being 26th, the team will get points for being 2nd.

 

Option 3 is a combination of Powerteam and user points, so in essence you are still contributing to the team total with every single submission, but thanks to the PowerTeam variable there's a buffer for hardware sharing (and hardware spamming). This also means that the team will benefit more from you pushing to beat another team.

 

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 wasn't even planning on adding that last option for the simple reason that change IS necessary. I think no-one can deny that over the last couple of months, hardware sharing (and score sharing) has been the most discussed issue (along with corporate overclocking). It's not only annoying for the community, as points are taken away from the team, but also for the HWBOT staff, as it's very difficult to prove hardware sharing. Therefore, a team ranking system change is necessary to reduce the effect of potential hardware sharing.

 

In the end, I added the option so people could vote for both the alternative that looks best and still ventilate the fact that they don't like change.

[K404]

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

[Massman]

Lol. In option 3 ... they are not useless. That's the big difference between what was suggested in the very first document: first design rendered newcomers useless for the team ranking, option 3 design embraces newcomers and make them useful.

 

Option 3:

 

Team points = (10x PowerTeam points) + SUM(all member points)

[K404]

From 1st post:

 

 

(option 3)

- Team quality:

-- best team score in ranking (global/hardware)

 

mix-up or have I mis-interpreted?

[Massman]

That's the PowerTeam variable: the best score of the team is used to determine the PowerTeam ranking of your team within a hw/bm ranking.

 

If I understand you correctly, you are angry with the idea that someone from your team, who pushed really hard to get the team higher up the PowerTeam ranking, is contributing more to the team in this specific hw/bm ranking?

 

How do you line that up with "all we fight for is the team spirit"? As far as I can see, option 3 would bring forum replies such as:

 

hey guys, just pushed this 5870 a bit further: went up from 15th to 12th in the user ranking AND brought the team from 5th to 3rd in the PowerTeam ranking!!

[K404]

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

[Massman]

Also, we're not giving users only 10% of their points. Personal totals will have 100% of the points; the team contribution algorithm just only uses 10% of that personal total. In practical terms: if you now get 25p for a submission, the new teams league will NOT change that. If someone beats you, you'll have still the same amount in decrease as you have now (like 24,8p or so).

 

Please make a note that that 10% is just relative weight. As mentioned here, the formula can easily be adjusted so there's no decrease in contribution from a personal point of view. The question is whether that makes things better or worse: do you want a team ranking with the top team at 5k points, 50k points or 500k points.

 

The idea is to have the new lay-out in this style:

 

Core i7 980X

INFO -- USER RANKING -- (POWER)TEAM RANKING -- ... --

 

In other words, the PowerTeam ranking will be on a separate tab. The scores listed on that page will ONLY contain the team name and NOT the user name. Clicking on the result will direct to the score detail page (which shows the user name).

[matose]

Alternative 2 is the worst and Alternative 3 seems the best to me

[K404]

Also, we're not giving users only 10% of their points. Personal totals will have 100% of the points; the team contribution algorithm just only uses 10% of that personal total.

 

 

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

[Massman]

K404, What you are describing is Alternative 5, not 3 .

[K404]

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]

 

 

 

______________________________

sum of user points/ 10 contributes to team score? I *think* my example is correct?? If i've got the interpretation wrong twice in quick succession... umm...... maybe the ideas need re-worded. If i'm getting this wrong, I.....doubt i'm the only one. (excuse the ego)

[Massman]

The key concept, the PowerTeam ranking, is missing in your example. That's the biggest difference between Alternative 5 and alternative 3.

 

Alternative 5: "Team ranking = SUM(points best submissions per ranking) + [sUM(all non-best submissions) / 10]"

 

Look at the example you worked out. Then look again at above formula.

 

Alternative 3 would be (following your example scores + assuming team/user ratio of 1/2 (which basically means team_weight/user_weight equals 1/2)):

 

PowerTeam contributes: 49,8 / 2 = 24,9p

Users contribute: (49,8 + 38,7 + 33,3 + 29,5 + 26,9) / 10 = 17,82

 

Thanks to math-magic, you can also look at things like this:

 

PowerTeam contributes: 10x (49,8 / 2) = 249p

Users contribute: (49,8 + 38,7 + 33,3 + 29,5 + 26,9) = 178,2

 

PS: there's an aspect of irony here. Although you're saying you are looking at things from a team-sprit point of view, you're still thinking too much in terms of user points. The PowerTeam points are points awarded to the team for being better in comparison to other teams.

[K404]

in reply to part of that, I ignored the PowerTeam part because it favours only the best score Anything that involves the PowerTeam formula can basically be classed as "not good for new benchers." Alternative 3 throws a very small carrot to them. One guy in the team might get 50 points for a submission, the next-best guy will contribute 3.9 points to the team MAXIMUM

 

I'm not seeing ANY difference between alternative 3 and alternative 5. Best team score= PowerTeam points???

 

 

 

Alternative 1: "PowerTeams"

 

- 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

 

 

________________________

I'll dissect the rest of the post and all the numbers when i've finished scraping my brain off the screen

Edited October 7, 2010 by K404

[Massman]

in reply to part of that, I ignored the PowerTeam part because it favours only the best score Anything that involves the PowerTeam formula can basically be classed as "not good for new benchers."

 

Yes. I think the correct term for this is 'compromise'.

 

Also, consider the following:

 

Any system that is very beneficial for newcomers is also very beneficial for hardware sharing. Any system that is very beneficial for newcomers is also very beneficial for large-sized teams, or the merging of several large teams. The latter has happened before and many people (not always in public) critisized this.

 

(url = http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1118)

 

The whole point of changing the current system is to make it less prone to pure quantity and more prone to pure quality. Both in terms of skill, effort as hardware.

[Kal-EL]

I only remember a handful of people complaining about the way it is now. Those are the same talking about hardware sharing as well. I would vote just leave it alone but that option isn't available unless you are considering "... oh, and also, I don't like changes" that option. I can't tell though as the last option is either worded weird or have some slick message hidden behind it. I like changes just not this change. A simple "no" or "leave it the way it is" would have been sufficient. Definitely not voting for Alternative #2 even though it is the closet thing to what we have. Can't because it has the latest proposal clinging on to it. Again, my 2 cents.

 

I agree. I'd rather have NO CHANGE than any of the proposed changes listed here. These Revisions are Team Killers and Participation Killers which effectually is a site Traffic Killer and Exposure Killer for the Manufacturers.

 

I've always told my guys that from the top of the ladder to the bottom, every bencher on our team is equally important. The guy with 3000 points is no more important than the rest of the team. And you know what, it keeps everyone motivated, everyone feels they are more than just an individual going it alone. They feel apart of something bigger than themselves. I got a kid, kikicoco benches his ass off every month because he feels a part of a family. He has ZERO global points. Under REV. 4 it would be utterly fruitless for him to post a single score on behalf of the team. He'd instantly be insignificant. He's not the only one either. What am I supposed to tell him now? "Kiki, keep benching for the team bro, it'll make your rich, help you score chicks, and get you a cool new job, but most definitely it won't matter one lick to the team"??????

 

It appears as if Rev. 4 would pretty much change the Team Rankings into a "individual" Overclockers League Ranking system. Under, Rev. 4, it would effectively turn away less supported, less financially capable overclockers from participating in any Team Competition.

 

 

One guy, well seeded/supported by a manufacturer, on a "one man team" could quite possibly dominate the Team Rankings indefinitely. Throw six of these guys together and you may as well kiss it.

 

Last time I checked with the Doctor, he told me that Manufacturers are interested in traffic, participation and marketing exposure. I see Rev 4 killing off a ton of participation which would in turn take with it traffic and marketing exposure.

 

The reasons I've read for Rev 4 appear to be mainly about bitching. In this instance bitching about "Hardware Sharing". Its odd because I've read more bitching about Rev 4 than anything else ever. There was concern about bitching moving to some other area besides "Hardware Sharing". Yah, it'll move far away to another area alright.

 

I understand the large amount of time and effort Massman has put into this Rev 4 idea. Heck, I even read two instances of him saying "please" to the membership. Kudos for effort bro but Rev 4 I really really think is bad business.

[K404]

@PJ

 

Well... I cant argue or dispute any of that.. sadly I dont have an answer for it either. I dont want to see a load hand-picked teams so everyone can be awesome without much category overlap and I dont want to see newcomers utterly sidelined

 

 

 

 

Total aside.... if this is NDA, thats no problem.

 

Futuremark.... how willing are they to play ball with the info we don't see on the ORB? Without asking what info is there, Could it be used to deal with at least some of the hardware sharing problems we have now? At least deal with the major stuff?

Edited October 7, 2010 by K404