Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

Recommended Posts

I agree with some rules for marketplace access but HWB has no responsibility in policing deals gone bad. That would fall solely on the buyer and seller. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Scott said:

I agree with some rules for marketplace access but HWB has no responsibility in policing deals gone bad. That would fall solely on the buyer and seller. 

I will second that :)

But the fact is that a ton of bad sellers exists. And they have the nerve to demand $$$ upfront thru Bank Transfer or PayPal " Friends and Family ONLY ".

Of course, if there are naive buyers to pay them this way, then so be it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. If you're willing to circumvent all of your protection, nobody can help you. You're on your own.

I will say though, word of mouth travels pretty fast here. Keep that in the back of your mind if you plan on being a shyster.

Edited by Mr.Scott
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed HWB has no responsibility for monetary loss but they could ban the party guilty of bad behavior. In my case someone fairly well known ( strong island ) and thought to be trust worthy has been stringing me along for six months. After the last communication below he just ignores PM's yet he has a new for sale thread @OCN. 

capturexx150198.jpg

https://www.overclock.net/forum/14786-full-systems/1714412-fs-high-end-r6-1080ti-i7-8086-build-hard-tube.html

 

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s the most efficient way to put the site down for 1 day, who do i have to pay :))), pardon make a donation to ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, suzuki said:

What’s the most efficient way to put the site down for 1 day, who do i have to pay :))), pardon make a donation to ?

It is not a shame, it is not a lie. Suzuki and myself are GOOD FRIENDS.

Having said that, we have privately discussed, with evidence on hand, how much money and HW we have lost HERE, from unresponsible ( very light way to put it ) sellers.

And yes, we were naive to trust them. NO MORE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they have no responsibility on the transaction itself , i feel they do have a responsibility of duty of care to their  members with dodgy sellers they've allowed into their hwbot market place and if they are seeing or get complaints of these dodgy sellers in any thread they should be investigated in the proper manner then if necessary banned from selling and if not bot itself for being total arswipes

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, unityofsaints said:

This is about the rankings algorithm folks, not the marketplace 😕

oh really ?? well the next time you open your trap in any other thread about something that isnt directly  "on topic" make sure you remember what you said here /////right ????

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few comments on the 7 vs 8.as a simple apprentice on the site since 2014

1. It does not make sense to divide up the country pages by different leagues. I normally spend more time comparing with the higher league than my own in Sweden.. As in compared to extreme league in sweden would be 4th but yes im am an apprentice. thus combine all in one country list. reduces maintenance im sure. meanwhile ofcourse its good there is a league that i can strive higher in as im not close to competitive with the LN scores.

2. I believe competition points should only be considered in terms of challenger and team competitions. There was only 35 or less countries competing and I was the one and only swede competing and still ended up on 20th place while I had not been able to enter even half of the sub-events.  Meanwhile if I had not taken part as the sole user i would lose a lot of points as I see it now.

3. clearly i would not want to lose my hard earned sli points with my GTX780's that burned up 4 years ago. If someone beat my score perfect but lets not make this simply a yearly scratch event.. i believe that is why the road to pro events are done and are run on a yearly basis. I find it fun to be out looking for old hardware to see if i can beat the old records even if being 10 years too late finding the hardware., keeping hardware points mean i can also revisit old scores that i had on simple waterloop and now DICE them. It also mean i can go back to same hardware with new bench software to add to old cups i already have. 

4. If someone is not active for 2-3 years then I would propose to simply mark the profile inactive and those scores dont count. If the person then comes back active the scores can be re-activated. While it looks like we have 130,000 or so users im not so sure that is true .looks nice to be part of the top 1% of overclockers haha but does not feel like it...

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The funny thing I've realised about Rev8 is that you need to bench stuff that gives good HW + globals, so benching a gen or two behind current CPUs such that the HW pts are high enough. And then disabling points for any higher scoring globals on newer hardware to maximise your points. XD

Although different core counts don't work that way ofc.

For example: bench 6700K instead of 7700K maybe as 6700K is maxed out on HW pts.

Edited by Noxinite
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm not sure why career/season points are changing to top 30 subs (hw+global) because there was significant pushback from the community on this in favour keeping the top XX global + top YY hardware system. We can see multiple responses from people with lots of support from others who question and disapprove of this change:

GeorgeStorm

On 11/21/2018 at 9:24 PM, GeorgeStorm said:

Only had a chance to skim through the thread.

Whilst I don't mind the idea of career vs 'current' ranking, but why have comp points in both? Comp points in current and no comp points in career makes more sense to me as comps are much more optional in my mind.

As others have said, but combining points (top 30 global+hw) you naturally bias it towards those with higher end hw, that was the best thing about the seperate hw and global points adding to your total.

 

Edit: Also while I don't really pay attention to team rankings, getting rid of the 'power points' (which was basically just the highest score with certain hw on a team counts?) would massively change the rankings, once again to teams with more high end hw.

WhiteWulfe

On 11/22/2018 at 4:43 PM, WhiteWulfe said:

Pretty much my thoughts on it.  I've skimmed through a lot of things, but wow...  Having rankings mostly be focused on what's been done the past year?  What happens to growth?  What happens to those who actually work on improving, and most importantly, those who tend to focus on older gear because they can't afford to risk (let alone BUY!) the higher end newer gear?

...

And, like others have mentioned, the new method puts those who tend to rely on hardware points for their standings (due to personal preferences, financial viability of older platforms, or both) are automatically at a disadvantage when someone can get upwards of three times the points through Global/Benchmark points....  AND really does reinforce the whole pay to play aspect of it all, as the only real way to even remotely compete points-wise (or have a chance in going up the rankings) would be to go all-in on liquid nitrogen (alongside all of that expensive brand new gear!), which for a lot of people, is just way too expensive.  No, I'm not calling LN2 pay to win, I'm referring to the fact that the newest hardware is bloody expensive, but if you happen to have the bank to get it, you can rather easily jump up the rankings for quite some time with access to such.

I'm all for having the workload on the backend be easier, but at the same time, there's a reason why the current system wound up being the chosen compromise in the first place - those who focus on older hardware (and therefore having HUGE walls to climb just to even get remotely decent scores, especially with previously rather popular gear) were able to at least see some sort of reasonable reward for their work (and not just Hardware Masters rankings), those who focused on the competitive side of things were also able to make a good firm push into the higher rankings (I made it as high as 363rd worldwide last year thanks to competition points!  Or was it 327th.  Either way, still something I never would have even been able to remotely contemplate before rev7, and it helped give me additional motivation to push harder to see just what could be done), and those who had the higher up placements in benches were also rewarded.

Is any system perfect?  Nope, but I will say this - while going up in the worldwide ranks in nice and all, I'd rather not be going up a few hundred rankings globally just because others weren't able to bench as often (current info shows me going from 1442 to 1201 worldwide JUST BECAUSE OTHERS WERE INACTIVE - that same info that would penalize me 211 spots in country rankings because rl's been a massive pain this past year).  Tying competition points to a timer is one thing (otherwise those who've been competing for years would have a HUGE advantage - this was a point brought up back when rev7 was being worked on!), but tying the entire league and overall rankings to such?  Blatantly stupid, and a giant middle finger to those older members who may have wound up having real life take priority, and benching somewhat of a back seat for a while.  Hell, it's two giant middle fingers to the community in general...

Mr Scott

On 11/23/2018 at 1:28 AM, Mr.Scott said:

As for HW points, I thought this site was primarily a HW database. HW points should be the mainstay of any formula that you come up with.

Everything else is just fluff.

Changing to top 30 subs will diminsh the impact of HW points because globals/wr are worth a lot more. This wouldn't be an issue if hardware and global rankings received similar amounts of points.

@richba5tard So why are we changing it to bias towards higher-end hardware? I think having X globals + Y hardware means you can be equally rewarded for benching the latest and greatest whilst also going after some older but awesome hardware. I don't think I've seen many people in this thread support this shift as opposed to keeping it as is (or something similar to as is, perhaps top 10 global + top 30 hardware if you wanna cut down on the number of subs contributing to career/seasonal ranking).

If your main arugment is "to simplify it", I think that's rubbish, because is the current system really that hard to explain? We already have these seperate global and hardware rankings that need to be explained to people, how hard is it to explain that they both must contribute separately to your ranking?

If you're not convinced then I would at least request you put up a vote with a duration of a few weeks to see what the community thinks.

Edited by Cautilus
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would argue hw+globals reduces the impact of high-end hardware because it makes titans irrelevant.

Edited by mickulty
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mickulty said:

I would argue hw+globals reduces the impact of high-end hardware because it makes titans irrelevant.

I'd like to see the maths on that.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To make everyone (or no-one, depends how you look at it) happy, it should all be balanced so you need to get global points and hardware points, 2D and 3D, to maximise points.

So say 10 globals max 100pts each + 20 hardware max 50pts each, and same amount of benches that get globals/HW in 2D and 3D.

Although, I'm not sure how different core counts and crossfire/sli would fit in. Nor WR pts or w/e they're called atm.

I was going to propose something like this initially, but I lost patience so never got round to thinking about it properly and still haven't.

Edit: but eh... there is always Rev 9. XD

Edited by Noxinite
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Noxinite said:

To make everyone (or no-one, depends how you look at it) happy, it should all be balanced so you need to get global points and hardware points, 2D and 3D, to maximise points.

So say 10 globals max 100pts each + 20 hardware max 50pts each, and same amount of benches that get globals/HW in 2D and 3D.

Although, I'm not sure how different core counts and crossfire/sli would fit in. Nor WR pts or w/e they're called atm.

I was going to propose something like this initially, but I lost patience so never got round to thinking about it properly and still haven't.

Edit: but eh... there is always Rev 9. XD

Paraphrasing with a bit of humor -

Is there really a way to satisfy everyone ? DEFINITELY NOT.

I must admit, looking at the efforts that Frederic does ( and his associates ), that there is at least one very encouraging point - there is finally an open channel between Admininstration

and the Community, to DISCUSS.

I am certainly NOT the right person to suggest what this balanced structure of points should be.

But I think that there are two very important things that must be secured, despite whatever changes will apply ( now and the future ).

1) Long time efforts of members ( going deep in the past )

2) Team points ( which are the accumulated long time effort of all Team members ).

From there on, simple logic suggests that IT MUST NOT turn into a money game ( it is now, it has been for ages ).

Hope. The last frontier. Let's not lose even that :)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Competitions are already struggling bigtime atm, why devalue them further by only including them in the seasonal ranking?

- World rankings are already top-heavy, why make them more so by removing comps and reducing the no. of scores from 55 (15 top + 40 HWpts) to 30?

We got polls for the relatively minor stuff but not the really important fundamentals 🤔

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, unityofsaints said:

- Competitions are already struggling bigtime atm, why devalue them further by only including them in the seasonal ranking?

- World rankings are already top-heavy, why make them more so by removing comps and reducing the no. of scores from 55 (15 top + 40 HWpts) to 30?

We got polls for the relatively minor stuff but not the really important fundamentals 🤔

 

And as Havli said " Last one to shut down the servers and turn off the lights ".

It is not funny. Not at all. I agree 110% to the last word !!!

We should come to our senses. WHO in the name of GOD is going to keep benching for 30 scores ?

Competitions are the " refreshing air ", where active members have a go and also have the opportunity to collect a few points. Seasonal ?

Why does the Administration not come open wide and say - people 30 scores - wanna be in, go LN2 ( obligatory ) and pay an arm and a leg for the latest and greatest HW,

to be competitive and maybe collect some points.

Not me, lol. I have spent in the last 8 years 50K plus for this - no more.

If the servers can't support a wide base of scores and give the benchers alternative solutions to accumulate points, then I don't bench.

WHAT ON EARTH CANT THE ADMINISTRATION UNDERSTAND ??? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, unityofsaints said:

- Competitions are already struggling bigtime atm, why devalue them further by only including them in the seasonal ranking?

- World rankings are already top-heavy, why make them more so by removing comps and reducing the no. of scores from 55 (15 top + 40 HWpts) to 30?

We got polls for the relatively minor stuff but not the really important fundamentals 🤔

 

I strongly agree with this one.

I think comps should have a bigger  affect on the scoring, or we will see less and less people joining them. They fill like more of a side quest that you do whenever you’re bored, then a part of the main game here. 

Also, why reducing the number of scores that counts in the ranking? Why not even rise that number, that will make it more competitive IMO

Edited by DanKadr
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think comps should have a dedicated separate league, so you can take part and get rewarded, but you don't have to take part for the rankings if you don't want to, since they are limited both in hw and timescale.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, unityofsaints said:

I'd like to see the maths on that.

Very few people bench titans, tight?  Even the OG titan gets less hw points than the 1080Ti, for example.

Now, right now titans are used to get top 3D scores.  They get the very most globals and that won't change.  However, they don't really get much by way of hardware points especially when relevant for globals.

Top 'consumer' cards still get close on globals but they get strong hardware points as well.  If you need best hw+global together, I think the top 'consumer' cards should be a better bet than cards than can acheive a little more globals but no hardware points.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GeorgeStorm said:

I personally think comps should have a dedicated separate league, so you can take part and get rewarded, but you don't have to take part for the rankings if you don't want to, since they are limited both in hw and timescale.

George, you are one of the most down to Earth members here on the BOT.

So, question :

Don't people need in every form of activity in life options and challenges in order to keep the spirit up ?

To wake up and keep trying to get better ?

If we start - cut this, stop that, restrictions, space getting smaller - then we wake up and say " what the hell, I might as well do something else "

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, mickulty said:

Very few people bench titans, tight?  Even the OG titan gets less hw points than the 1080Ti, for example.

Now, right now titans are used to get top 3D scores.  They get the very most globals and that won't change.  However, they don't really get much by way of hardware points especially when relevant for globals.

Top 'consumer' cards still get close on globals but they get strong hardware points as well.  If you need best hw+global together, I think the top 'consumer' cards should be a better bet than cards than can achieve a little more globals but no hardware points.

Yes it makes Titans slightly weaker but the impact of cutting off 20+ of your top HWpts is much higher than slightly gimping Titans. Globals go up to 200+ pts, HWPts cap at 67. When you've got a limited number of slots, which do you shoot for? Globals.

Case in point, I don't own any Titans and Slinky has them. I bench old stuff for HWPts, he doesn't. I have a mix of HWPts and globals in my current top 15, he doesn't. He's ranked one spot ahead of me currently but 32 spots (!) ahead on UAT. We both drop an additional 30 spots on top of that so it's not a case of one of us having a better benchmark mix for Rev.8 or anything like that.

HWPts generally act as the great equaliser and reducing their contribution to the rankings generally has a much higher impact than any other little tweaks here and there (like combined HWPts + Globals ranking).

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×