Adjustment for Global Points - Work in progress

[Alan_Alberino]

Looks nice, but... Where are the hardware points? Most pieces of hardware are with 0 points in every bench.

[Mr.Scott]

Meh.....all I see is a points fluff for individuals. Team wise, nothing much changes except for the mostly inactive teams. They gain hugely.

Might as well just leave it alone. I see no benefit other than pacifying a few individuals and absolutely no benefit to active teams or anything remotely promoting a team oriented atmosphere.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Mr.Scott

[MaddMutt]

This might have already been brought up....IF not I have a suggestion.

That each benchmark class be given a World Record for that class of achievement.

What I'm referring to is awarding an individual for having the fastest time with a 1 core, 2 core, 3 core, Ect, Ect, CPU. This would also include awarding an individual for having the Fastest 1 card, 2 cards, 3 cards, Ect, Ect, score.

 

You may say that we already do this........http://hwbot.org/submission/3162947_riska_superpi___1m_core_i7_3770k_5sec_62ms

The Last One is Funsoul who is RANKED 1st in 6xCPU........http://hwbot.org/submission/3166822_funsoul_hwbot_prime_core_i7_4930k_8669.79_pps

[Strong Island]

This might have already been brought up....IF not I have a suggestion.

That each benchmark class be given a World Record for that class of achievement.

What I'm referring to is awarding an individual for having the fastest time with a 1 core, 2 core, 3 core, Ect, Ect, CPU. This would also include awarding an individual for having the Fastest 1 card, 2 cards, 3 cards, Ect, Ect, score.

 

You may say that we already do this........http://hwbot.org/submission/3162947_riska_superpi___1m_core_i7_3770k_5sec_62ms

The Last One is Funsoul who is RANKED 1st in 6xCPU........http://hwbot.org/submission/3166822_funsoul_hwbot_prime_core_i7_4930k_8669.79_pps

 

I think they just changed that when they started the global first places, each class use to have a world record but then it dilluted world records a bit so now a world record is the best possible overall score for a benchmark. It makes sense.

 

The points are different from the 2 examples because obviously there are way more 1m and 3770k subs then 4930k and hwbot prime. Which I think is ok. More competition, more to be gained by placing high, more of an achievment. I kind of wish we could leave things alone and maybe just address a few things.

 

Some better incentive for 3d and cheaper gpus.

 

Maybe the answer to better incentive for 3d could be oc-esports. Have like monthly competitions for certain gpu classes. Like an amd comp for a certain gpu and all re-brands. Or 960 comp. Old school gpu comps. Stuff like that could be cool, and then some of those gpus would start to be worth a bit more hardware points, probably not much though. Just trying to think of ideas. if we made sure there was one every 2 months that could be really cool and fun. Like right now I'm having a ton of fun modding and benching the gtx 960 for div III.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Strong Island

[Rauf]

I thought about two things that I feel would be good for the upcoming adjustment to the points system:

 

1. Shared score = shared points. No more 742 XTU… Also good because it can be strategic not be beat someones score sometimes if you equal it. And some benchmarks like aquamark and XTU tend to give the same amount of points very often.

 

2. Points for competitions are very imbalanced. 50 for winning a whole competition (most competitions) is way too low. Even competitions that are very difficult to win, like Asus or country cup, gives you 50 points. These comps should be 100 points, very small competitions can still be 50 points.

And then we have the G.Skill comp. The qualifier gave 100 points and that is too low for the level of competition. Should be 150. And then the final gave 250 points! That’s way too much. I think 100 is about right. If you are going to give points to both qualifier and final the qualifier should get the most points. The finals are all about the money

[Massman]

Thanks for bringing up the topic again. We are in the last testing phase of the latest spin of R7. I'm planning for an article this weekend to detail the last version on UAT.

 

To answer your points:

 

1. Since the points will be based on the score in relation to the top score (and not the rank), it will not be possible to avoid same points for same scores. From a philosophical point of view, how can one make the argument that Person A's 742pts in XTU is worth less points than Person B's?

 

2. I'm open to any adjustments to the competition points. The point distribution was chosen arbitrarily, so I'm sure there's a lot left to optimize. From a more broader perspective, how would you classify and valuate the different competitions (online/live, extreme/amateur, qualifier/final, open/invite, ...)?

[GeorgeStorm]

1. Since the points will be based on the score in relation to the top score (and not the rank), it will not be possible to avoid same points for same scores. From a philosophical point of view, how can one make the argument that Person A's 742pts in XTU is worth less points than Person B's?

 

I don't think he's suggesting different points for the same score, but shared points.

 

Both to stop lots of people getting the equivalent of first points, and also to encourage people to actually try to beat each other rather than just equal.

[Taloken]

Sharing points equally between scores is not possible.

 

Ex :

 

XTU i3 6320 : 49 peoples at 742 marks.

 

Let's say a top score give 100 HWP for a unique guy.

So here, a 742 score will give ... 2 HWP for each guy !

 

And of course, a 741 marks has obviously to give less point, so it decrease to let's say 1.5 HWP.

 

 

Extreme example ofc, but to mean that it devalue all of the ranking if you share points between equals scores.

[Rauf]

I don't think he's suggesting different points for the same score, but shared points.

 

Both to stop lots of people getting the equivalent of first points, and also to encourage people to actually try to beat each other rather than just equal.

Exactly this. With the new points system the base points will automatically be the same I guess, but in case of a top score there will be some kind of bonus points? That bonus could be shared. Say we have two people who have equaled the GFP. Bonus points for both would be =(bonus for nr1+bonus for nr2)/2

 

With regard to the competition points it can be hard to tell which competitions will be popular. Maybe not that hard, but anyways... A better, non-subjective way would be to give points according to the size of the prize pool. Comps with both qualifier and final should give points in the qualifiers based on the total prize pool for both qualifier and final. Finals are harder to judge because some are decided very much by luck of hw draw, while others are more based on skill. Also, the number of participants is low, but average skill level high. Maybe the middle road would be for the finals to get the same amount of points as qualifier?

 

Will be interesting to see the revised R7 ideas!

[Rauf]

Sharing points equally between scores is not possible.

 

Ex :

 

XTU i3 6320 : 49 peoples at 742 marks.

 

Let's say a top score give 100 HWP for a unique guy.

So here, a 742 score will give ... 2 HWP for each guy !

 

And of course, a 741 marks has obviously to give less point, so it decrease to let's say 1.5 HWP.

 

 

Extreme example ofc, but to mean that it devalue all of the ranking if you share points between equals scores.

If 49 people can get the same GFP-score, is it really worth that many points?

 

Also, you misunderstand a bit. They would not share the first place points only. But all points from 1-49 would be shared equally for all 49 people.

[TaPaKaH]

I think there was a vote where people voted for all 49 people to have #1 points in such a situation.

[Rauf]

I think there was a vote where people voted for all 49 people to have #1 points in such a situation.

You can always have a new vote if the first one was wrong, right Britain?

[GeorgeStorm]

I think there was a vote where people voted for all 49 people to have #1 points in such a situation.

You can always have a new vote if the first one was wrong, right Britain?

 

[newlife]

After having a look a uat server I have to say I don't mind the way it's looking as unlike last time the balance between global and hardware points for me at least stays around same although I drop 50+ places because of comp points having less weight but I gain 150 places in hardware masters

[Massman]

Alright, I've put up the documentation about the version that is currently on UAT. This is the 4th internal revision (sorry @richba5tard), and the first one that I think is good to have a more closer look at.

 

Enjoy the article: HWBoints Revision 7 Overview (or PDF)

[Alex@ro]

OVERCLOCKERS LEAGUE

 

The league algorithm is similar to R6 with a couple of tweaks. In the equation below you can find the calculation for points in the Overclockers League.

 

 

User Points

 

 

Where,

 

A = Top 15

B = Top 40

C = Top 25

BP = Benchmark Points

GP = Global Points

HP = Hardware Points

CP = OC-ESPORTS Competition Points

Compared to Revision 6, we have increased the allocation of Hardware Points from 30 to 40.

 

 

Now it's 20 not 30 .

 

So doubling the hardware points counter plus increasing their value . Not a bad move but in my opinion it should 1 out of 2 not both.

 

Also 25 counter for Competition Points is huge,i tought a lot of people bashed those but you actually increased their value by 2.5 times Really curious who joined 25 competitions last year . That means to take part in all Challengers ( 7 challenger x 3 rounds = 21 ) and additional 4 competitions on top , basically needing a shitload of hardware and time. Of course nobody forces you to join anything,just saying.

[Xtreme Addict]

+

 

1. 3D worth more points

2. 4-Way finally pays off, 300 points I love it ^^

 

-

 

1. 40 HW points slots... imho too much

2. Changed HW points amount of points. Why benching legacy gpus on new cpu is worth more than CPU HW points which are much harder to get and last long?

3. 25 OC Esports/competition slots it's too much. Considering that past half year we had only 2x PRO Cup with proper formula/prizes I see it as something really strange.

4. 8 Pack is 3rd world wide though he doesn't bench/upload scores for like 1 year now. The most funny thing is that he has more WR/Global points than Daniel or myself ^^ I mean it shows that new algorithm changes a lot over Rev. 6

5. Weird categories get high scores ^^

[TheGamingBarrel]

+

 

1. 3D worth more points

2. 4-Way finally pays off, 300 points I love it ^^

 

-

 

1. 40 HW points slots... imho too much

2. Changed HW points amount of points. Why benching legacy gpus on new cpu is worth more than CPU HW points which are much harder to get and last long?

3. 25 OC Esports/competition slots it's too much. Considering that past half year we had only 2x PRO Cup with proper formula/prizes I see it as something really strange.

4. 8 Pack is 3rd world wide though he doesn't bench/upload scores for like 1 year now. The most funny thing is that he has more WR/Global points than Daniel or myself ^^ I mean it shows that new algorithm changes a lot over Rev. 6

5. Weird categories get high scores ^^

 

No offense intended

 

4,Ian isnt even 3rd in elite, let alone worldwide, I think most of us have seen his points deteriorating massively.

 

5, At the same time weird categories get WAY Too few points, such as DJ's 4X 24 Core CPU R15 Sub, only has points because it is a WR.

[GeorgeStorm]

4,Ian isnt even 3rd in elite, let alone worldwide, I think most of us have seen his points deteriorating massively.

 

He's 3rd on the UAT server using the new R7 which is what I believe Xtreme Addict was referring to.

 

I have an extra 200+ points but haven't really changed places in any of the leagues (by 1 in OC and a bit more in Hardware Master).

 

Not necessarily a problem just interesting.

[Xtreme Addict]

He's 3rd on the UAT server using the new R7 which is what I believe Xtreme Addict was referring to.

 

I have an extra 200+ points but haven't really changed places in any of the leagues (by 1 in OC and a bit more in Hardware Master).

 

Not necessarily a problem just interesting.

 

Yap, on UAT server. Maybe I shouldn't list it as "-", just more like interesting thing showing how many changes were done in fact.

[TheGamingBarrel]

He's 3rd on the UAT server using the new R7 which is what I believe Xtreme Addict was referring to.

 

I have an extra 200+ points but haven't really changed places in any of the leagues (by 1 in OC and a bit more in Hardware Master).

 

Not necessarily a problem just interesting.

 

Yap, on UAT server. Maybe I shouldn't list it as "-", just more like interesting thing showing how many changes were done in fact.

 

In this case, I apologise.

[GeorgeStorm]

In this case, I apologise.

 

No need to apologise, just a slightly misunderstanding

[RULE]

In my opinion 40 hwboint result is way too much. There's people in top 10 without touch x99 platform....

 

PJ remember my idea to introduce Efficiency point? there's no way to add some test in uat server?

[Rauf]

Thanks for the update! And a good presentation also!

 

First of all, there is an error in the table, but also in the code for the uat server. In the table describing the algorithm, the bonus points go #1, #1, #3, #4, #5. There is no #2, and also, the points for the one that should be #2 is wrong. I guess this is why in the ranking at uat-server, the top 3 benchmark score is listed as nr 2, and sometimes also gets more points than nr 2. Sometimes it is nr4 that is ahead of nr3…strange

 

My main concern with R7 in general is that if we have a points system and a ranking it has to be rewarding. Both for the top players and for the enthusiasts. If you go from a global top 20 to a global top 10 position it has to make a difference. Also if you are an enthusiast and you get a water cooler and improve your score by 1000 points you have to be rewarded. Let’s look at examples:

 

In R6 Fire strike 1xGPU: Going from top 20 to top 10 gets you 7,6 points. In R7 you go up 11 points. It is a little better, but still too little. If we instead consider XTU, going from top 20 to top 10 in R6, you get 10,7 points. In R7, you gain 5,3 points. Does this reflect the effort and achievement?

 

If we look at it from an enthusiast’s point of view it is even worse. Let’s say I have pretty decent rig; I have a 5960X, watercooled and overclocked, and a 980 Ti run at stock. I run the Fire strike benchmark, and get 18500 points = 1 point in R7. If I overclock my GPU and gain 1000 points…I still get 1 point! Might as well kill the enthusiast league…

 

Some other random comments:

 

On the + side:

Good to reward 3D-benchmarks slightly higher than 2D. I think the difference looks like a good balance

 

Points scale decently for top 5 positions in R7, compared to only top 3 positions in R6. I would like to see better scaling all the way down to top 10 or possibly even top 20.

 

Good that you can get hw-points for modern hw now.

 

Interesting that WR points scale with relation to top score!

 

On the - side:

Some 2D-benchmarks like pifast, wprime, superpi seem to get global points lowered artificially to maximum 89 points? That is too low.

 

WR points are too high. Lower both CPU and GPU points. Or remove CPU WR points all together, it’s not really overclocking after all. Lower GPU WR points to level of CPU points, or even lower. You have to consider that the GP for 4xGPU setups have also increased to 3 times as much as in R6.

 

Way too much focus on hw points in the rankings with 40 point slots. Keep it as it is today, you have already increased max hw points to 53,8. Also consider the industry aspect. Overclocking cannot exist without the vendors. And I don’t think they are interested to see people top the rankings with only submissions on old hw.

A thought is that since global 3D points have been boosted, why not balance it by boosting CPU hw points? The top CPU hw points are much harder to get than GPU so it seems fair

 

HW points scaling is too low. It is very easy to get 30+ points. 30 points is a third place in R6…

 

25 slots for competition points? When we have 25 relevant competitions we can do this, not until then. 10 is fine for now.

 

How are equal scores supposed to be handled? From looking at XTU 2 core it looks a bit random…

 

One final random suggestion:

Give global points for mem OC. Even though I don’t like it so much, it is pretty popular, and popular with the sponsors also. Split it into categories like DDR4, DDR3, DDR2 etc.

[Splave]

Can I get a TLDR: on this? I feel like i dont have enough of an education to understand the point system anymore.