IanCutress Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 Any chance of rerunning the Enthusiast position calculation script on the test server, just to see where people stand? It looks like it bugged out half-way through.
thebanik Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Looking at a few people's profile, I feel as if there should be a limitation of how many submission from a user for same benchmark should be allowed. Like someone who has access to a lot of CPU's(wont take names here) somehow but not much of GPU, can be in Top 10 just because he has best of CPUz records and nothing else. Is this something we want???
Chiller Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 i don't think that's a good idea, everybody is good in something, the other in CpuZ OC, the other one in 3D. And limitation in number of submissions for a benchmark is something you can't do, because if somebody has like 100 cpu's or Vga's ?? So he can't submit anymore ? I think you can forget that
knopflerbruce Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Looking at a few people's profile, I feel as if there should be a limitation of how many submission from a user for same benchmark should be allowed. Like someone who has access to a lot of CPU's(wont take names here) somehow but not much of GPU, can be in Top 10 just because he has best of CPUz records and nothing else. Is this something we want??? I think it should be up to the bencher to decide what benchmarks he/she wants to run. If you want to get 20 awesome CPUZ results you need alot of skill anyway.
Massman Posted May 20, 2011 Author Posted May 20, 2011 I think eventually we'll have to move to a fixed balance between 2D and 3D benchmarks anyway. Thebanik brings up a fair point.
knopflerbruce Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 I think eventually we'll have to move to a fixed balance between 2D and 3D benchmarks anyway. Thebanik brings up a fair point. I don't think it's a good idea to make people run half'n'half at least, even though that's probably easier to code (10 2D and 10 3D). Max 15 2D and max 15 3D, perhaps that's fair enough. Sounds better to split by 2D/3D rather than specific benchmarks.
Lippokratis Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 i don't think that's a good idea, everybody is good in something, the other in CpuZ OC, the other one in 3D. And limitation in number of submissions for a benchmark is something you can't do, because if somebody has like 100 cpu's or Vga's ?? So he can't submit anymore ? +1
Chiller Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 now there is a speedlimit? yikes... was it not a hardware limit ?
Mr.Scott Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 I think eventually we'll have to move to a fixed balance between 2D and 3D benchmarks anyway. . Tell you what.........why don't you just tell everybody what you'd like them to bench, and how high too.
DopeLex Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) Easy solution for all problems: no points for nothing - first point on to-do-list for Rev. 5, which probably comes next year... Then everyone can bench what he/she wants to bench. No need for leagues, no need for screens, no need for hwbot?!? Is that the way it goes?!? ;-) Edited May 20, 2011 by DopeLex
TaPaKaH Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Well actually, the idea doesn't sound all that bad since, in my personal opinion, a high-ranked overclocker must be capable of both 2D and 3D. P.S. thebanik, don't you worry ... that someone will upload some 3D within a month
Linuxfan Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 so turrican can't submit anymore? lol And he will sell his results to other overclockers who need to balance their profile. :ROTF: @Hwbot staff When is Rev4 test server getting another refresh? My XS Teammate Chew* is taking points for his hardware submissions again... just wondering when that'll be reflected on the test server as well
kirbster Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 Looking at a few people's profile, I feel as if there should be a limitation of how many submission from a user for same benchmark should be allowed. Like someone who has access to a lot of CPU's(wont take names here) somehow but not much of GPU, can be in Top 10 just because he has best of CPUz records and nothing else. Is this something we want??? I dont think this is a good idea at all. Otherwise we should just tell everyone that you can only bench this cpu or that gpu. Why limits? if the person wants to invest more time and effort then it should pay off. Sounds a bit too much like public school where everyone gets a ribbon, just so the ones not doing as well wont "feel bad". It is like anything in life, higher effort should gain better results....no?
DopeLex Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) I dont think this is a good idea at all. Otherwise we should just tell everyone that you can only bench this cpu or that gpu. Why limits? if the person wants to invest more time and effort then it should pay off. Sounds a bit too much like public school where everyone gets a ribbon, just so the ones not doing as well wont "feel bad". It is like anything in life, higher effort should gain better results....no? +1 Why hwbot/Massman doesn't tell us, what you want us to bench? That is the biggest crap i ever heard, when talking about changes to hwbot. >:-( Edited May 21, 2011 by DopeLex
Lippokratis Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 Why hwbot/Massman doesn't tell us, what you want us to bench? That is the biggest crap i ever heard, when talking about changes to hwbot. >:-( +1
thebanik Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 Maybe my post may not have been clear when I reread. Anyways I will try and explain more, See for Global there is no need for these limitations, I understand. But I was specifically talking about hardware points. Afterall there is no limit there, other than the 1000 pt limit. And hardware points are something which would not move much. So somebody who has just good CPUz/any other submission means he can be in TOP 10. I understand it is not easy to top 20 categories whichever they might be but is every1 ok with the idea that some1 in World Top 10/20 is a master in only 1 benchmark/or just 2D.
Mikecdm Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 That seams perfectly fine to me. If someone wants to be a master at one trait it's ok. If someone wants to be more versatile, then let them be. So those who like to bench cpu's only and don't care about 3d should be limited or forced to do something which they don't like?
DopeLex Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 Maybe my post may not have been clear when I reread. Anyways I will try and explain more, See for Global there is no need for these limitations, I understand. But I was specifically talking about hardware points. Afterall there is no limit there, other than the 1000 pt limit. And hardware points are something which would not move much. So somebody who has just good CPUz/any other submission means he can be in TOP 10. I understand it is not easy to top 20 categories whichever they might be but is every1 ok with the idea that some1 in World Top 10/20 is a master in only 1 benchmark/or just 2D. Restrict here, restrict there - as i mentioned before: tell us what to bench. That sounds so weird, especially for hardware points. Everything what get points has to be ranked. Doesn't matter if cpu or gpu. Why to restrict everything? Makes no sense in my eyes. There are allways people how are better in 2D and some how are better in 3D. Why they have to do both to obtain a good rank in hardware masters ranking? That makes absolutely no sense in my eyes. Then you can tell us what you like that we bench and the next step is only give a rank for challenges. I'm sorry and it's okay, that everyone has an idea, but if that comes: hwbot definitly would loose hundreds of members. I'm not the only one who thinks so, because we are a community, and isn't that what counts and isn't to do that what the community want's???
Linuxfan Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) Maybe my post may not have been clear when I reread. Anyways I will try and explain more, See for Global there is no need for these limitations, I understand. But I was specifically talking about hardware points. Afterall there is no limit there, other than the 1000 pt limit. And hardware points are something which would not move much. So somebody who has just good CPUz/any other submission means he can be in TOP 10. I understand it is not easy to top 20 categories whichever they might be but is every1 ok with the idea that some1 in World Top 10/20 is a master in only 1 benchmark/or just 2D. I don't see an issue here. It takes luck or lots of binning or buying a proven chip to get up to an amazing CPU-Z with a CPU, plus some skill and dedication to figure out settings... Other benchmarks take more knowledge to get a really good efficient score. If somebody has a bunch of amazing CPUs, can get them up to record speeds including rest of setup like mem tweaking and without killing them, then get efficient results, good for him. SB makes benching 2D and especially 3D easier if you get a super chip, but still to get the best results with your clocks you have to tune the rest of the system's clocks and use the right OSes and find tweaks. Its not so easy to get a 49 point hardware submission, and to keep the ranking will be even harder because everyone is competing for the top spots. To get in top 10/20 with only hardware points would be quite an achievement, and would take a lot of work even if you are super lucky. 20th place in the OC League currently is at 945.50 points. If you get 19 49.6 point submissions, you will be at 942.40 points. You have to be very, very lucky to get 20 49 point submissions easily. Its fair game. Somebody is always lucky and finds a good CPU, but that doesn't mean its a cakewalk to get to the top or a given that he/she is going to get there. Restrict here, restrict there - as i mentioned before: tell us what to bench. That sounds so weird, especially for hardware points. Everything what get points has to be ranked. Doesn't matter if cpu or gpu. Why to restrict everything? Makes no sense in my eyes. There are allways people how are better in 2D and some how are better in 3D. Why they have to do both to obtain a good rank in hardware masters ranking? That makes absolutely no sense in my eyes. Then you can tell us what you like that we bench and the next step is only give a rank for challenges. I'm sorry and it's okay, that everyone has an idea, but if that comes: hwbot definitly would loose hundreds of members. I'm not the only one who thinks so, because we are a community, and isn't that what counts and isn't to do that what the community want's??? Massman is not going to tell me what to bench Edited May 21, 2011 by Linuxfan
thebanik Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 Restrict here, restrict there - as i mentioned before: tell us what to bench. That sounds so weird, especially for hardware points. Everything what get points has to be ranked. Doesn't matter if cpu or gpu. Why to restrict everything? Makes no sense in my eyes. There are allways people how are better in 2D and some how are better in 3D. Why they have to do both to obtain a good rank in hardware masters ranking? That makes absolutely no sense in my eyes. Then you can tell us what you like that we bench and the next step is only give a rank for challenges. I'm sorry and it's okay, that everyone has an idea, but if that comes: hwbot definitly would loose hundreds of members. I'm not the only one who thinks so, because we are a community, and isn't that what counts and isn't to do that what the community want's??? Ofcourse its not as if its getting implemented. And please stop saying bot is gonna lose hundreds of members/your community is very strong and would leave at the drop of a hat. There have been a fair few controversial changes made in hwbot which has affected many but still those who had resisted before the changes, all have stuck around barring a handful. So no point in finishing your pov with empty threats.
8ykrid Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 Looking at a few people's profile, I feel as if there should be a limitation of how many submission from a user for same benchmark should be allowed. Like someone who has access to a lot of CPU's(wont take names here) somehow but not much of GPU, can be in Top 10 just because he has best of CPUz records and nothing else. Is this something we want??? serios? it´s like a kindergarten here. sry that idea is big Bull***t! this all what i can say about this idea! look at the post of the offer members, they have the same opinion.
Massman Posted May 22, 2011 Author Posted May 22, 2011 Massman is not going to tell me what to bench I wouldn't even dare to tell anyone what to bench! I want to grab the opportunity to point out that there is a difference between 'telling people who and what to bench' and 'designing a league so it's challenging for those who want to participate'. I think we had this discussion right before Rev3 launched too. Designing the league is basically setting up a few algoritms to make the league as competitive as possible. These algoritms are supposed to fit closely to the the main concept and key principles you want to apply to the league. Now, for each type of league, the design will 'tell' users what to bench to be competitive. Even if there would be no limitation to global or hardware, the design would still be telling users how to bench. In this case, for instance, the design of the league would say to users 'bench as much as possible' as there is no limit to global or hardware points. Now, the design of the Overclockers League can change over time. In revision 3, for instance, we put at lot of stress on the global points and very few stress on the hardware points. In Rev4, this balance will be around 50/50. In other words: the new design is allowing users who are nailing #1 spots in competitive hardware rankings to compete at the top of the league. Even AMD-only overclockers can be competitive in this design! The 2D/3D benchmark ratio for the Overclockers League can be seen in the same light. The principle for this rule could be: "the Overclockers League should be displaying the best allround overclocker". Following that principle, a fixed 2D/3D ratio can help finding the best allround overclocker. But, this is not for Rev4.0! Just something we can keep in the back of our heads. There is a fine line between 'giving people an opportunity' and 'telling them what to bench'. I think it just depends on how you look at the design: negative people will see it as yet-another way of hwbot to control the way you overclocking, positive people will see it as a new way to compete and work your way to the top. In any case, HWBOT is absolutely not trying to control the way people enjoy the overclocking game. In fact, I would even say that the leagues and the points are not important. If you don't like the league, no problem: just don't look at it and bench for your team. If you do like the league: have fun with the design and do your best to get the best position you can get.
Massman Posted May 22, 2011 Author Posted May 22, 2011 And he will sell his results to other overclockers who need to balance their profile. :ROTF: @Hwbot staff When is Rev4 test server getting another refresh? My XS Teammate Chew* is taking points for his hardware submissions again... just wondering when that'll be reflected on the test server as well I'll schedule a build now. So it'll be up and running in ~ 8/9 hours.
Recommended Posts