Teams League Rev.4

[Massman]

Just a random fact I'd like to throw at you.

 

HWBOT currently counts:

 

- 46 Global rankings

- more than 10864 HW CPU rankings (didn't count the multi-CPU rankings)

- more than 7260 HW GPU rankings (didn't count the 3/4-VGA rankings)

 

People also always want more rankings where they can get point for. Introducing a simple new benchmark for the CPU (not split up per core) would currently increase the amount of HW CPU rankings with 1552 (amount of CPU models in our database)

 

Are you now going to tell me that with a 6-man team you can 'win' the team rankings? Or that there's no way for newcomers to help the team by having the team's #1 score in some ranking?

 

Numbers argue differently.

 

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?

 

I have no idea how they will use the bone I threw them in the LOC-incident. Basically, they didn't use the information before (at all) and only after given incentive to have a look at some scores the info they had came in handy. I'm unsure if there are plans to continue the research on score/system sharing.

 

In any case, whatever Futuremark will do, it doesn't help us. FM has no information on the specific VGA/CPU identity and can, in other words, not differentiate between two CPU or VGA samples. Or, to make it even more clearer: they can not see the difference between your E8600 and my E8600.

[BenchZowner]

They can see however if you used the same windows installation.

But that's also inconclusive, because some people share various stuff including HDD's with win installations.

[K404]

Yea, at a group session once the CPU is running nicely, its much easier to switch GPUs and keep going than stop, defrost, switch xyz and start again. Theres a LOT of scores on the bot where that's clearly the case (hopefully nothing less legal)

[Massman]

Under REV. 4 it would be utterly fruitless for him to post a single score on behalf of the team.

 

Wrong.

 

All his golden cups will be worth more to the team than before. All the scores where he's got the best score of the team in that specific ranking will be worth more to the team.

 

He'd instantly be insignificant.

 

Wrong.

 

See above.

 

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.

 

Double wrong.

 

Being good individually will get you somewhere (pretty much like Turrican would be a top-35 team on his own in the current system), but it will not give you a free pass to the top of the rankings.

 

Also, having support (and therefore golden samples) will be equally beneficial in terms of adding points to your team, but less beneficial in terms of taking away points from the other teams. In addition, two people on the same team with great connections (2x golden sample) have a lot less effect in the Rev4 as having the top-2 spots in the user ranking doesn't mean anything for the spots in the PowerTeam ranking.

 

Financially less-capable overclockers still have an effect on the team ranking in two ways: increasing their own points (eg: bench old hardware for hardware points) and putting the team in those old-skool rankings in 1st/2nd/3rd in the PowerTeam ranking.

 

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.

 

Partially wrong.

 

One man team will not 'dominate the team rankings indefinitly'. A team with a series of very-capable, well-motivated overclockers will do just fine.

 

And what is wrong with that? "very capable", "well motivated" ... isn't that a good thing?

 

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.

 

Ironic.

 

When I first published the plans, people almost killed me under the assumption that all my intentions were marketing-driven. Now that ONE(!) single aspect of the plans is changed, I'm being accused of not being marketing-driven enough.

 

What a strange world we live in.

[knopflerbruce]

Sounds like we need a test server, even though that could mean that some people will vote for whatever solution that works best for themselves, or their team:D

[drnip]

What a strange world we live in.

 

Yes indeed what a strange world we live in and how people don't listen. The general census was to leave it alone and not go with the change but for some reason HWBot keeps starting thread after thread on changing it. Funny how the majority of the peeps are voting #2 and #6. Maybe this thread you will finally listen to the masses and just leave it the way it is. But its ya'lls world and we are just squirrels.

[Massman]

Yes indeed what a strange world we live in and how people don't listen. The general census was to leave it alone and not go with the change but for some reason HWBot keeps starting thread after thread on changing it. Funny how the majority of the peeps are voting #2 and #6. Maybe this thread you will finally listen to the masses and just leave it the way it is.

 

I also said before that things NEED to change. I've said it from the beginning, a couple of times in the other rev4 thread and said it several times in this thread as well.

 

Things NEED to change. Period.

[drnip]

I also said before that things NEED to change. I've said it from the beginning, a couple of times in the other rev4 thread and said it several times in this thread as well.

 

Things NEED to change. Period.

 

That's fine. You feel things need to change then things need to change. Nothing we can do about it. I believe alot of people fear the unknown, fear change and are left to draw there own conclusions on what will be. The majority of these conclusions are probably wrong in the end. You can post mock-up after mock-up, example after example but until you do a trial run and let people see what you are talking about you will have the dilemma that you have in your hands now. Good luck and I hope you work it out.

Edited October 7, 2010 by drnip

[BenchZowner]

One man team will not 'dominate the team rankings indefinitly'. A team with a series of very-capable, well-motivated overclockers will do just fine.

 

Actually it is quite possible.

If not one man, 2 or 3 can.

Assuming that the man/3men have awesome CPU's, they can buy the most popular and point-worthy hardware ( most of them come cheap, GF8 series, GF7, Radeon 1xxx ) and grind.

A 6.4-6.5GHz 3D capable CPU can be your ticked to multiple HW categories domination.

[Massman]

Actually it is quite possible.

If not one man, 2 or 3 can.

Assuming that the man/3men have awesome CPU's, they can buy the most popular and point-worthy hardware ( most of them come cheap, GF8 series, GF7, Radeon 1xxx ) and grind.

A 6.4-6.5GHz 3D capable CPU can be your ticked to multiple HW categories domination.

 

Current system:

 

Top-5 hardware masters = top-6 team

Top-10 hardware masters = 44k team (= 12k more than current #1 team)

 

Estimations on how much people you need to be the #1 team in a rev4 design are very likely to be incorrect. For a good estimation, we need to see a beta version in action.

[drnip]

Exactly as I was saying massman. Until you bring a beta we are left to draw our own conclusions and will be stuck on this mary-go-round.

[Kal-EL]

Wrong.

 

All his golden cups will be worth more to the team than before. All the scores where he's got the best score of the team in that specific ranking will be worth more to the team.

 

 

 

Wrong.

 

See above.

 

 

 

Double wrong.

 

Being good individually will get you somewhere (pretty much like Turrican would be a top-35 team on his own in the current system), but it will not give you a free pass to the top of the rankings.

 

Also, having support (and therefore golden samples) will be equally beneficial in terms of adding points to your team, but less beneficial in terms of taking away points from the other teams. In addition, two people on the same team with great connections (2x golden sample) have a lot less effect in the Rev4 as having the top-2 spots in the user ranking doesn't mean anything for the spots in the PowerTeam ranking.

 

Financially less-capable overclockers still have an effect on the team ranking in two ways: increasing their own points (eg: bench old hardware for hardware points) and putting the team in those old-skool rankings in 1st/2nd/3rd in the PowerTeam ranking.

 

 

 

Partially wrong.

 

One man team will not 'dominate the team rankings indefinitly'. A team with a series of very-capable, well-motivated overclockers will do just fine.

 

And what is wrong with that? "very capable", "well motivated" ... isn't that a good thing?

 

 

 

Ironic.

 

When I first published the plans, people almost killed me under the assumption that all my intentions were marketing-driven. Now that ONE(!) single aspect of the plans is changed, I'm being accused of not being marketing-driven enough.

 

What a strange world we live in.

 

wait wut? OH! Now I see it! eh, no, nope, I thought I saw the double rainbow but nope, needs more sunshine tweaking before I can feel as optimistic as you do about Revision 4.

 

Good luck tweaking bro, as I and many others percieve it at this moment, it looks like crap. Maybe putting together a better presentation might help people to not get the wrong idea about Revision 4.

[pablocs08]

I voted for Alternative 5 yeahhh! is the winner

[Splave]

IMO all this talk of change is killing the site, massman this is your site and you should and will do what you want in the end anyways. All the bickering is such a turn off, really. Stop asking us, just do what you want to do. No more polls no more threads. Just make the changes you wish and im dead serious about this, truely. People will adapt and or move on. Not everyone deserves a trophy mate. Its okay to loose and you shouldnt be rewarded for doing so.

 

So I say do what you want, but just do it already.

(no malice at all srsly)

 

 

"Less talk, more results" ~shammy

[knopflerbruce]

wait wut? OH! Now I see it! eh, no, nope, I thought I saw the double rainbow but nope, needs more sunshine tweaking before I can feel as optimistic as you do about Revision 4.

 

Good luck tweaking bro, as I and many others percieve it at this moment, it looks like crap. Maybe putting together a better presentation might help people to not get the wrong idea about Revision 4.

 

Option 3 is quite hard to explain, and I got it wrong when I voted:D Unless I got it wrong (again) it's basically Option 5 without HW sharing benefits.

[GeorgeStorm]

Massman I'm confused, why do things need to change?

As a whole, I think rev3 isn't half bad.

[drnip]

I also said before that things NEED to change. I've said it from the beginning, a couple of times in the other rev4 thread and said it several times in this thread as well.

 

Things NEED to change. Period.

 

This comment leads me to believe option #6 is pointless. Also leads me to believe it doesn't matter what the masses say but what you say. I could be wrong though as coming across wrong on the internet is easy to do. Just please whatever you do make it stop. Dragging this out thread after thread, post after post, poll after poll, day after day has gotten old quick, fast and in a hurry. Then you have proposed after proposed and then after proposed revision concepts which is doing nothing but confusing everybody. All of this is killing peoples attitudes towards the bot. You might be blind to it all but everybody I have spoke with feels this way and this is across several forums I frequent. I'm with splave on this, do what your going to do and quit asking us and quit dragging us along on this crazy ride. Not trying to be harsh or a dick but just being real.

Edited October 7, 2010 by drnip

[steponz]

The more I look at number 3, it doesn't look that much of a change... And so far it actually looks pretty good..

 

I do think its very confusing to read an understand.. Might be the reason for some not liking it..

 

How will this effect the overall points structure for teams?

[Gautam]

I propose:

 

Alternative 7: "Zero"

- Everyone's individual points set to 0

- Every team's points set to 0

 

+ Everyone's a loser

+ Everyone's a winner

+ Team spirit dies completely

+ massman is out of a job

+ Brian y. realizes his dream of having the most points possible on hwbot

 

It's a win-win situation.

[Splave]

What if you cap HW team boints? aka cant have more than 500 hw points per piece of hardware per team?

+makes sharing less beneficial

---you cant stop HW sharing completely, its impossible. This would atleast reduce the effects of it somewhat

+will make teams research and bench different hardware and become more skilled overclockers

---your team already has reached 500hw boints with 8800gtx, 8800gt, and 4870, 4850, so they are drawn to less boint worthy hardware such as 7900gtx or 4830 etc.

+makes smaller skilled teams as capable as 3000+ memeber teams

---keeps quality more important than quantity

 

Negatives, hit me with em.

[Massman]

Just a heads-up: Alternative 2 is basically the worst of both worlds. Both hardware sharing heaven and removing team spirit.

 

Massman I'm confused, why do things need to change?

As a whole, I think rev3 isn't half bad.

 

Rev3:

 

- Is highly prone to hardware sharing

- Is prone to extremely large teams

- Doesn't allow much scaling in terms of amount of HWBOINT benchmarks

 

Especially the first item is important since it annoys both the community and the staff.

 

This comment leads me to believe option #6 is pointless. Also leads me to believe it doesn't matter what the masses say but what you say. I could be wrong though as coming across wrong on the internet is easy to do. Just please whatever you do make it stop. Dragging this out thread after thread, post after post, poll after poll, day after day has gotten old quick, fast and in a hurry. Then you have proposed after proposed and then after proposed revision concepts which is doing nothing but confusing everybody. All of this is killing peoples attitudes towards the bot. You might be blind to it all but everybody I have spoke with feels this way and this is across several forums I frequent. I'm with splave on this, do what your going to do and quit asking us and quit dragging us along on this crazy ride. Not trying to be harsh or a dick but just being real.

 

As said before, I added option #6 to allow people to both choose for the alternative that they think will work best AND ventilate the anger towards changing anything.

 

I wish I had a carte blanche to do whatever I want.

 

Also, I don't have any issue with explaining the idea and concepts behind changes. In addition, it's good to get feedback on stuff as well (the initial design for the teams league clearly was a no-go so needed to be fixed), but maybe endless voting doesn't work either. I could close this thread and just wait untill Frederik has a beta server running with all three designs: current league, powerteam league and the combination of both 'alternative 3'.

 

The thing is, sometimes the situation how it is right now doesn't show the problems with the algorithm. For instance, Alternative 5 looks véry similar to alternative 3 when you do the calculations with the current rankings, but if you search for loopholes you find that 5 is actually very prone to hardware sharing, much more than 3. Without the theory behind the algorithm, these things are lost in numbers.

 

How will this effect the overall points structure for teams?

 

How do you mean?

 

I propose:

 

Alternative 7: "Zero"

- Everyone's individual points set to 0

- Every team's points set to 0

 

+ Everyone's a loser

+ Everyone's a winner

+ Team spirit dies completely

+ massman is out of a job

+ Brian y. realizes his dream of having the most points possible on hwbot

 

It's a win-win situation.

 

"I win"

 

What if you cap HW team boints? aka cant have more than 500 hw points per piece of hardware per team?

+makes sharing less beneficial

---you cant stop HW sharing completely, its impossible. This would atleast reduce the effects of it somewhat

+will make teams research and bench different hardware and become more skilled overclockers

---your team already has reached 500hw boints with 8800gtx, 8800gt, and 4870, 4850, so they are drawn to less boint worthy hardware such as 7900gtx or 4830 etc.

+makes smaller skilled teams as capable as 3000+ memeber teams

---keeps quality more important than quantity

 

Negatives, hit me with em.

 

You just described alternative 4 .

[Splave]

I meant make it transpartent, not member1's and members2's scores count for the team....there is no ownership of the team points by the members individually only as a whole. They have their own seperate hw points but team points are team points.

 

 

http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_480?tab=rankings#/manufacturer.rankings.do?applicationId=2&manufacturer=nvidia&hardwareTypeId=GPU_1684&hardwareType=GPU&tabid=gpubenchmarks

[Massman]

Ah. That's what I had in mind for the PowerTeam rankings: teams get points for their position in a ranking, regardless of who submit the score. Separate tab as well, with scoring lay-out like this: http://hwbot.org/competition/hoc_oct10. So, visually it will also look as if the team grabs points, rather than an individual.

 

Alternative 4, where you limit points for specific hw/bm combinations is quite difficult coding-wise, however. A few posts back I counted the amount of rankings we have right now:

 

Just a random fact I'd like to throw at you.

 

HWBOT currently counts:

 

- 46 Global rankings

- more than 10864 HW CPU rankings (didn't count the multi-CPU rankings)

- more than 7260 HW GPU rankings (didn't count the 3/4-VGA rankings

 

This means that we have to define max points for upto 20k rankings. Scalability is a pain with that system since adding one benchmark increases the amount of max point definitions by all possible HW categories. Also, it means we have to keep track of how much points a team has for each of that ranking ... huge database.

[nazzgul]

I vote alternative 2, but I read all and understand everything. I agree with Patch, about alternative 6. However, if something it's going to be modificated, I prefer to vote alternative 5. In that case, I ask you, please, to change my vote. Thks.

 

Sorry my bad english

 

Bye

[Splave]

Ah. That's what I had in mind for the PowerTeam rankings: teams get points for their position in a ranking, regardless of who submit the score. Separate tab as well, with scoring lay-out like this: http://hwbot.org/competition/hoc_oct10. So, visually it will also look as if the team grabs points, rather than an individual.

 

Alternative 4, where you limit points for specific hw/bm combinations is quite difficult coding-wise, however. A few posts back I counted the amount of rankings we have right now:

 

 

 

This means that we have to define max points for upto 20k rankings. Scalability is a pain with that system since adding one benchmark increases the amount of max point definitions by all possible HW categories. Also, it means we have to keep track of how much points a team has for each of that ranking ... huge database.

yeah that could be a mess of huh, but may be worth the time