Teams League Rev.4

[Massman]

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

 

Note that this system does render people's submissions meaningless as, once the team cap has been hit, any submission in the same category is worth nothing to the team.

 

Also it leaves hardware sharing quite beneficial as any team will push to hit the cap in as much rankings as possible. If the cap has not been hit yet, sharing hardware to make that hit is beneficial.

[Sweet]

I have not made my decision yet also prefer to wait to discuss this with friends from Argentina, Chile, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay and Mexico. (Latin America)

I think that hasty decisions are only individualistic positions;)

 

hope to give my opinion after this weekend

 

Regards

 

Sw

Edited October 7, 2010 by Sweet

[steponz]

Im wondering if a team voting procedure would be better?

 

I know its alot of work, but for each proposition... Can we have a look to see how it effects Team standings?

 

I know my team feels very hurt since we do not hardware share.

[steponz]

Isn't rev 3 the one that effects hardware sharing the least? but still does...

 

Wouldn't this almost be the closest to what it is now?

[vento1]

It all looks too damm complicated, I have put my second brain sell to work on this and between us we have decided on alternative 3.

[steponz]

Another thing is.. how does this effect the guys on the team that dont exactly get the best scores? But still bench the hardware? These are the ones that I think are hurt the most.. Since before they felt they were helping with the team... and now there score doesn't count.....

 

This is why I tend to go to Version. 3

[BenchZowner]

While i wait for copy cat hwbot site to pop up to give this site some competition... here is a different approach to this "team ranking situation" just in case anyone else out there is listening:

 

Leave community rankings just as they are and stop referring to them as team rankings. Community rankings is more appropriate as that is what they are.

 

Create a team ranking system which consists of an actual team. Real teams have a limited amount of players (soccer, football, rugby, hockey etc.).... start there.

 

I propose 8 members per team as japan seems to doing well with this number. 15-20 members seems a bit too much. A larger community with lots of members will have internal goal to compete within itself to try and make it to first string... Meanwhile if they aren't first string, they still contribute to the community.

 

Leave it to the team captain to choose who he/she wishes to be on his/her team.

 

Here is another thought...

 

Now that we have a real team with an exact amount of players, it would only make sense that we have an exact amount of hardware (instead of all hardware ever created) that is eligible for points!

 

Create of list of eligible hardware (100 pieces? 200 pieces?), why not start with the most popular for now.. there is no need to include your entire database for team points.

 

To keep it interesting, modify your list of eligible hardware every quarter to include new hardware, remove old hardware, or even add really old hardware which would probably force the team captain to revise his/her team.

 

:battle:

 

Not a bad idea at all

[Massman]

I like the idea of community rankings, but I don't think we should be rating communities by the amount of points they bring in as the quality of a community can (imho) not be caught with a concept as abstract as hwboints. We could use things like: how much active members, how much variety in benching, how much scores with points, what the ratio of blocked/verified scores are. But also things like how much people are banned from that community, etc. Maybe even put in a part where doing WCG or folding is good for the community ranking.

 

I always liked the feature in the very old HWBOT where we could say to what forums we belong (was used for forumbot purposes, but nice anyways). I would very much like to say that although I'm part of the Madshrimps OC Team, I also contribute/spend time on OCXtreme and KPcooling etc.

 

(shit, more work for rev4 )

[Sweet]

While i wait for copy cat hwbot site to pop up to give this site some competition... here is a different approach to this "team ranking situation" just in case anyone else out there is listening:

 

Leave community rankings just as they are and stop referring to them as team rankings. Community rankings is more appropriate as that is what they are.

 

Create a team ranking system which consists of an actual team. Real teams have a limited amount of players (soccer, football, rugby, hockey etc.).... start there.

 

I propose 8 members per team as japan seems to doing well with this number. 15-20 members seems a bit too much. A larger community with lots of members will have internal goal to compete within itself to try and make it to first string... Meanwhile if they aren't first string, they still contribute to the community.

 

Leave it to the team captain to choose who he/she wishes to be on his/her team.

 

Here is another thought...

 

Now that we have a real team with an exact amount of players, it would only make sense that we have an exact amount of hardware (instead of all hardware ever created) that is eligible for points!

 

Create of list of eligible hardware (100 pieces? 200 pieces?), why not start with the most popular for now.. there is no need to include your entire database for team points.

 

To keep it interesting, modify your list of eligible hardware every quarter to include new hardware, remove old hardware, or even add really old hardware which would probably force the team captain to revise his/her team.

 

:battle:

 

Seriously,very interesting, I like this new approach

[Bobnova]

While i wait for copy cat hwbot site to pop up to give this site some competition... here is a different approach to this "team ranking situation" just in case anyone else out there is listening:

 

Leave community rankings just as they are and stop referring to them as team rankings. Community rankings is more appropriate as that is what they are.

 

Create a team ranking system which consists of an actual team. Real teams have a limited amount of players (soccer, football, rugby, hockey etc.).... start there.

 

I propose 8 members per team as japan seems to doing well with this number. 15-20 members seems a bit too much. A larger community with lots of members will have internal goal to compete within itself to try and make it to first string... Meanwhile if they aren't first string, they still contribute to the community.

 

Leave it to the team captain to choose who he/she wishes to be on his/her team.

 

Here is another thought...

 

Now that we have a real team with an exact amount of players, it would only make sense that we have an exact amount of hardware (instead of all hardware ever created) that is eligible for points!

 

Create of list of eligible hardware (100 pieces? 200 pieces?), why not start with the most popular for now.. there is no need to include your entire database for team points.

 

To keep it interesting, modify your list of eligible hardware every quarter to include new hardware, remove old hardware, or even add really old hardware which would probably force the team captain to revise his/her team.

 

:battle:

 

I like this.

[wanako]

Create a team ranking system which consists of an actual team. Real teams have a limited amount of players (soccer, football, rugby, hockey etc.).... start there.

HwBot isn't FIFA, the site don't provide hw for a [real] competition, an animated gif cup isn't a [real] prize but motivate

In addition, the site exists as a database and a place of meeting a little more complex, not all play constantly.

I propose 8 members per team as japan seems to doing well with this number. 15-20 members seems a bit too much. A larger community with lots of members will have internal goal to compete within itself to try and make it to first string... Meanwhile if they aren't first string, they still contribute to the community.

It's a good idea to restrict by quantity, or rather, it is better to change the concept of weight, maybe implementing something more drastic as a percentage of all team members.

Now that we have a real team with an exact amount of players, it would only make sense that we have an exact amount of hardware (instead of all hardware ever created) that is eligible for points!

 

Create of list of eligible hardware (100 pieces? 200 pieces?), why not start with the most popular for now.. there is no need to include your entire database for team points.

 

To keep it interesting, modify your list of eligible hardware every quarter to include new hardware, remove old hardware, or even add really old hardware which would probably force the team captain to revise his/her team.

But without losing the dbase/bot concept?

 

The staff's decision depends on the delicate balance between hobby/competition and resources/manufacturers... and us we complain all the time

[rbuass]

How does affect personal points?...

Or...will affect only Team rankings and points

[Turrican]

How does affect personal points?...

Or...will affect only Team rankings and points

 

it doesn't affect your personal points, only the team rankings and points.

[Massman]

My thoughts on the team/community rankings (some already said by Wanako too).

 

1) Community consists cross-team

 

A community should not be defined by who wants to be on one specific team but rather on who's actively participating in some kind of forum or discussion group. People are part of one team, but part of multiple communities. Breaking that up 'officially' (visible in some kind of website) is good or bad?

 

2) Deciding what hardware is eligible

 

Nice idea in theory, but in practical terms the choice of hardware needs to be addressed through rules and guidelines. When revision 4 was presented to the public, hwbot was falsely accused of changing the rules to suit the manufacturers. Also, the decision to allow competitions (live and online) to be a part of the infividual rankings was attacked because we only allowed partners to hold competitions that would count to the total. If this is a problem with so few truths and nothing but perception, how big will the problems be when hwbot actually decides what hardware gets points? What if Intel joins up: will you accept if their wish is to only award points to intel-based products? What's the ratio between cpu and gpu categories, and what with memory and mainboard? Will you quit hwbot if two 'seasons' in a row, your type of hardware wasn't picked, basically limiting you from participating in the team?

 

3) Team spirit damaged

 

Team players will leave the 'community' if they think they deserve a spot, but don't get one. This is a problem in professional sports and overclocking is for most of us still a hobby. People fight to be on first string not because they want to help out a bigger cause (as then they'd settle for the community rankings), but also because they want to make themselves look/feel better ("look, I'm on the 8 selected benchers of my community"). Since for most of us, the main goal in overclocking is effectively to help the team, not cutting it will give the feeling of 'uselessness' in the team.

 

4) Multiple similar teams

 

As a consequence of 3, there will be an increase in similar teams (which was also a consequence of the original rev4 team ranking plan). This means that the team rankings can be dominated by one team, but several subdivisions of that team: 'pure1', 'pure2', 'pure3', ...

 

5) Hardware sharing

 

This suggestion doesn't address the hardware sharing issue within teams and sister-teams. This can be solved partially by introducing the original rev4 plan as team ranking, but that will have as consequence 4.

 

6) Team captain problems

 

As mentioned before, there will be people in the community that really wish to be more important for the community by joining the team, but don't get picked couple of seasons in a row. What if a team member feels left out because the team captain doesn't like him, or has that perception? Again, overclocking is a hobby, so the reward is mostly honor and friendship. If those are gone, so are your community members.

 

7) Overclocking teams are not 'real teams'

 

The real teams you are describing are all teams that meet together in real life or online at a fixed time to achieve a specific joined goal. Overclocking teams, on the other hand, fight constant different battles at random timeframes using different goals without meeting together before battle. Online gaming comes closest to overclocking teams, but still they are meeting at a fixed time-frame. The analogy is not complete. This would work if manufacturers would hold lots and lots of small local events around the world, but we're not there (yet).

[hipro5]

OK.......show me with example with which version HOT will go ahead and I'll vote....

[maverik-sg1]

Look this is a no brainer for me - it's clear that things as they are seems to serve the community the best - any deviations from the current set-up is gonne upset some people, lots of people if I am honest.

 

Thing is with HWBOT it's a central database for overclockers and their associated teams.

 

I see a lot of communication all over the community from lots of members, new and old, who can't help but feel that these changes serve a different agenda to that of serving the community.

 

I would suggest that the current proposals could in fact cause a mass exodus/boycott on a scale never seen before - maybe time to re-assess the proposals and maybe do a 'voice of the customer' which would enable you to make V4 somehting that the community want rather than give them something they are going to get, but not like.

 

One missing option here to vote on is 'keep it as it is' - I'd like to see how many people vote for that.

[GENiEBEN]

While i wait for copy cat hwbot site to pop up to give this site some competition... here is a different approach to this "team ranking situation" just in case anyone else out there is listening:

 

Leave community rankings just as they are and stop referring to them as team rankings. Community rankings is more appropriate as that is what they are.

 

Create a team ranking system which consists of an actual team. Real teams have a limited amount of players (soccer, football, rugby, hockey etc.).... start there.

 

I propose 8 members per team as japan seems to doing well with this number. 15-20 members seems a bit too much. A larger community with lots of members will have internal goal to compete within itself to try and make it to first string... Meanwhile if they aren't first string, they still contribute to the community.

 

Leave it to the team captain to choose who he/she wishes to be on his/her team.

 

Here is another thought...

 

Now that we have a real team with an exact amount of players, it would only make sense that we have an exact amount of hardware (instead of all hardware ever created) that is eligible for points!

 

Create of list of eligible hardware (100 pieces? 200 pieces?), why not start with the most popular for now.. there is no need to include your entire database for team points.

 

To keep it interesting, modify your list of eligible hardware every quarter to include new hardware, remove old hardware, or even add really old hardware which would probably force the team captain to revise his/her team.

 

:battle:

 

+1

[BenchZowner]

Game on.

[Massman]

The team ranking has been brought up in the last HWBOT meeting (RichBa5tard and myself). Managed to explain the PowerTeam concept and the idea got approved by the software coder, which is already good. Two leagues may not be ideal in terms of maintaining and focus.

 

In the beginning of december an example ranking will be shown on a test server, as well as an actual implementation of the visual aspect of the PowerTeam.

[Antinomy]

Pieter-Jan, can you please make a summary - how does Team points count interfere with member points and three user leagues?

For example, (from what I got from the powerpoint doc and first topic of this thread), I have a result that was done on air/water and beats 4-5 results on SS/LN2 and twenty on air/water but is not the first. Then I bench on SS and get the first place beating 6-7 results on SS/LN2. The one made on air doesn't get points anymore.

 

But since the new system will reward beating extreme cooling results using air/water cooling and vice versa, my team gets less points for a better results, am I right?

 

I don't even get the ranking system with user points but it can be understood if there are three rankings and you decide which one to participate, but the team points... If a team has a big variety in terms of member experience and benching stuff, it'll suck in all rankings or the other way - achieve the best from all three leagues?

 

This question can be added to FAQ, I think not only I am confused

[Massman]

The idea is:

 

- UFL = top sponsored/corporate overclockers

- XOL = Xtreme overclockers

- EL = Ambient overclockers

 

The rankings will be split up in 'member rankings' and 'team rankings'. To visualize this, check this page: where the tab now says 'member rankings', it will be split up in two tabs saying 'member rankings and team rankings'.

 

- Member rankings = like they are now

- Team rankings = described in earlier posts as 'powerteam'

 

For the different user leagues, we'll use the following criteria:

 

- UFL: global points

- XOL: global points + hardware + competition + ...

- EL: global + hardware + ... (but filtered on ambient cooling results only)

 

All above rankings are based on the one and only member ranking algoritm; like it is now. The EL will just count all points of your scores with ambient cooling. In case you have a better score with extreme cooling, it will beat your ambient cooling result so the latter will not receive any points and YOU will drop in the EL ranking.

 

For the team ranking, this doesn't change anything as all user rankings are based on the same member ranking algoritm.

[Antinomy]

So the leagues are pretty much like filters for the database (everything allowed for UFL, filter out ES for XOL and filter subzero for EL) and the team rankings count the old way - overall but with modifications (I remember about Powerteams). So free for all for team ranking without that league division is what we needed, thanks

[PizzaMan]

Does 'powerteam' mean only the top team member in each hardware/global goes towards team points or does everyone's points count to the sum total?

[Massman]

'Powerteam' is a term introduced to differentiate between the overall teams league (which we all know and care about) and the teams league per benchmark ranking. 'Powerteam' can be seen as ANY benchmark ranking, but instead of grouping the results per user_id (= creating user BM rankings) grouping the results per team_id (= creating team BM rankings).

 

The last couple of HWBOT OC Challenges can be understood as 'Powerteam' challenges as well: you bench for the place of your team within a benchmark ranking.

 

Alternative 1 = overall teams league based SOLELY on this powerteam thing. Alternative 3 is a combination of the powerteam concept and the effort of casual overclockers putting a load of results up the bot.

[Antinomy]

You're talking about benchmark ranking. Does this mean that the Powerteam ranking will be about global points only? So what about hw boints?