TPP. This goes against the principle of encouraging benching

[El Gappo]

#2 Is the only one that makes sense to me, if all globals for a particular bench can contribute to your personal rankings then it should be the same from a team standpoint, if one person is a pcmark specialist and that's all they want to bench then let them. I think that was a step forward in rev4, if you/your team dominates a benchmark you should get full points.

 

#3 is basically what we wanted to avoid and #1 puts even more weight on that one person.

 

I definitely don't think the way to solve a problem with an overcomplicated system is to make it more complicated with option 3.

[PizzaMan]

Is there going to be a writen test at the end, because I'm totally lost?

 

Maybe some kind of online course to teach team captains how to understand the ranking system so we can in turn teach our team?

[Predator]

i'd say #2 fits best, as that way a team can set an strategy like member "x" focus on a determinate hardware and member "y" on another different one

 

#1 seems like too much depending on just one person and kinda hurts what a team effort should meant to be in my opinion (as for TPP)

 

#3 seems quite difficult either to implement and to follow for us members , we should know exactly how TPP are affecting in each category/ranking/benchmark and it'd be real hard knowing when to tick or untick the checkbox

[voidn]

I don't think large majority of people will spend the time to understand option #3. And if they did it would be a lot of work to check an entire teams scores to maximize points.

 

#2 is the best option if I understand it correctly. Its a team competition so the best team score for any hardware should always count. Even if the same user is generating the points.

[TaPaKaH]

I suggest create a new thread with a poll in it

 

I'm all in for either options #1 and #2.

Option #3 makes sense too, but it would take a lot of effort for teams to analyse TPP global ranks and their scores and get the best out of them ... this takes time, and I'd rather see people spend their time on benching

[PizzaMan]

“Simplicity is the key to brilliance”

 

~Bruce Lee

[El Gappo]

“Simplicity is the key to brilliance”

 

~Bruce Lee

 

“If you make an ass out of yourself, there will always be someone to ride you”

 

~Bruce Lee

 

[PizzaMan]

“"A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer."”

 

~Bruce Lee

 

 

 

[xxbassplayerxx]

#2 Is the only one that makes sense to me, if all globals for a particular bench can contribute to your personal rankings then it should be the same from a team standpoint, if one person is a pcmark specialist and that's all they want to bench then let them. I think that was a step forward in rev4, if you/your team dominates a benchmark you should get full points.

 

#3 is basically what we wanted to avoid and #1 puts even more weight on that one person.

 

I definitely don't think the way to solve a problem with an overcomplicated system is to make it more complicated with option 3.

 

i'd say #2 fits best, as that way a team can set an strategy like member "x" focus on a determinate hardware and member "y" on another different one

 

#1 seems like too much depending on just one person and kinda hurts what a team effort should meant to be in my opinion (as for TPP)

 

#3 seems quite difficult either to implement and to follow for us members , we should know exactly how TPP are affecting in each category/ranking/benchmark and it'd be real hard knowing when to tick or untick the checkbox

 

I agree with both of these

 

#2 is the way to go!

 

 

EDIT: C-c-c-c combo breaker!

[Bobnova]

#2 is the only one that really makes sense to me.

#3 is a staggering headache, and doesn't seem like it would change much of anything (check the box for all and let the best score count, or uncheck the box and lose points? Easy choice!).

[knopflerbruce]

I think option 2 looks better, just my first impression. Cherry samples won't affect things that much, as only a few models are cherry picked (980x/990x for example).

[mAlkAv!An]

Solution #2 sounds good to me, I prefer this one too.

[IanCutress]

Looks like #2 is the prevailing opinion. How are we going to move forward?

[IanCutress]

Did anything happen? Take 3D05 on 1x GPU.

 

http://hwbot.org/benchmark/3dmark05/#cores=1|interval=50|rankBy=teams

 

PURE has the top 2 TPPGL with a 3D05+1x480 and 3D05+1x580 (made by different people).

Is it changed now so that if one person on their own has the best 480 and best 580 scores, both count for the team?

Edited October 8, 2011 by borandi

[PAQd]

Did anything happen? Take 3D05 on 1x GPU.

 

http://hwbot.org/benchmark/3dmark05/#cores=1|interval=50|rankBy=teams

 

PURE has the top 2 TPPGL with a 3D05+1x480 and 3D05+1x580 (made by different people).

Is it changed now so that if one person on their own has the best 480 and best 580 scores, both count for the team?

 

....., this is how it should be