Massman Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I suppose one of the problems is that the hardware/benchmark rankings at hwbot never finish. With any new tweak, any ranking could potentially be completely renewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Vaguely related idea....... Should hardware categories be "closed" after a certain length of time? I am on the fence, but it's an idea i'm throwing out there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how it would work practically. Does that mean that, at a certain point, you can no longer do anything with your old 3000+ Venice? One of the things that make hwbot so appealing, imho, is that you can basically have fun overclocking with nearly anything, no matter how old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 New thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 It only applies to GPU categories, but even then it sounds like a bad idea. I see the problem, but that solution is just wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 It also applies to CPU categories if you consider the 'discovery' of new tweaks. Closing the rankings is not an option, I think, but it would be interesting to brainstorm about this. I reckon there are a few 'out-of-the-box' ideas that might work well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 This idea was posted about 1,5y ago and kind of follows a similar line of thought. It came up during the discussion following the plans for the GTTP/HTTP Team Ranking (hence the reference too hw sharing). 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. Quite a lot of positive replies to that idea, here's what I commented on that: 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der8auer Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Isn't the goal of HWBot to push the hardware to the limit? Not everybody has the money to always buy the latest Hardware so we have to provide the space for ppl buying older graphics cards so they can still overclock these. Plus not everybody likes the latest hardware. Overclocking a GeForce 8 or 9 series is much more fun for me than overclocking a GTX580. Even these days ppl submit a lot of scores using e.g. a 8800GT and it's nice to see new WRs there from time to time - that's what HWBot is for. I don't want a closed ranking and someone comes up on another forum saying "the scores on HWBot are not even the real WRs - I have much higher scores." IMO the hardware sharing isn't a problem anymore since rev. 4. Edited February 29, 2012 by der8auer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Scott Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Isn't the goal of HWBot to push the hardware to the limit? Not everybody has the money to always buy the latest Hardware so we have to provide the space for ppl buying older graphics cards so they can still overclock these. Plus not everybody likes the latest hardware. Overclocking a GeForce 8 or 9 series is much more fun for me than overclocking a GTX580. Even these days ppl submit a lot of scores using e.g. a 8800GT and it's nice to see new WRs there from time to time - that's what HWBot is for. I don't want a closed ranking and someone comes up on another forum saying "the scores on HWBot are not even the real WRs - I have much higher scores." IMO the hardware sharing isn't a problem anymore since rev. 4. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 Just to be clear: this thread is not to defend/discuss a specific suggestion, but to brainstorm about an existing problem where new evolutions in software and hardware can have a great effect on the effort and money people have spend on overclocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaPaKaH Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 with 2D it's not an issue .. with 3D it's just a part of the game, there's nothing you can do about it well ok, in theory you could give extra hardware points to, for example, fastest "Wolfdale + 8800GT" 3DMark06 score, but that'd just create way too many 3D subcategories and make things even more confusing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hondacity Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 everything sounds good except the title: "closing*" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoF Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) First impression: remove massman, that would avoid discussions like that Second view more serious: imo the only way would be "old" and "new gen" ranking. e.g. consider G80 / G92 - it was an epic fight on 775 but as soon as 1155 hit the market a zillion results have been destroyed...still I enjoy stuwi in front of me with E8600 in 01... ...so whenever there is a new CPU-gen which might "unbalance" everything, you would need to freeze current ranking and make "V2" then. V1 ranking is about "early and first people to push the limits" V2 ranking is about anybody who think it is cool to do better mostly because of more CPU power... Considering myself: I am only good enough for V2 ranking most of the time ^^ Edited February 29, 2012 by SoF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knopflerbruce Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 3D is a bitch that way (and this is one of the reasons why I haven't started running all my GPUs yet), but i don't see a good solution. V1 and V2 rankings are OK in some ways, but you'd have twice as many rankings - which is alot. Plus, the V1 rankings shouldn't be fully closed, you should be able to submit using a CPU from a generation that was released at the time the GPUs were the newest technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M.O.G. Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) I kinda feel like this is a solution looking for a problem. Isn't it the natural order of things in benchmarking that your scores do not stand forever? The stronger your score, the longer it is likely to stand. I don't see a problem in that... If you want to keep your rankings, you have to stay up to date to defend them. I like that. If there is a perceived problem with that, I think quarterly ranking snapshots would be cool so you can compare to last quarter, this quarter last year, and a quarter maybe 4 years ago just to look at how things changed and the trends. It would be neat to see a capture like that of what the dominant platforms looked like over a timeline... Currently that is lost as older stuff is trampled. I think snapshots would be a better answer than multiplying the number of rankings further. Sure, the snapshots wouldn't count for points in the current rankings, but people would still have the honor of being captured at the top of past snapshots and that's something cool to strive for (something worth sandbagging for even perhaps?). The more divisions there are in the rankings, the harder the rankings are to police, and there is already enough garbage in the rankings that is hard to detect and eliminate at non-top levels (that isn't a criticism of hwbot, just recognition of a difficult problem to address given the number of submissions). Edited March 1, 2012 by I.M.O.G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzolio Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 I kinda feel like this is a solution looking for a problem. Isn't it the natural order of things in benchmarking that your scores do not stand forever? The stronger your score, the longer it is likely to stand. I don't see a problem in that... If you want to keep your rankings, you have to stay up to date to defend them. I like that. If there is a perceived problem with that, I think quarterly ranking snapshots would be cool so you can compare to last quarter, this quarter last year, and a quarter maybe 4 years ago just to look at how things changed and the trends. It would be neat to see a capture like that of what the dominant platforms looked like over a timeline... Currently that is lost as older stuff is trampled. I think snapshots would be a better answer than multiplying the number of rankings further. Sure, the snapshots wouldn't count for points in the current rankings, but people would still have the honor of being captured at the top of past snapshots and that's something cool to strive for (something worth sandbagging for even perhaps?). The more divisions there are in the rankings, the harder the rankings are to police, and there is already enough garbage in the rankings that is hard to detect and eliminate at non-top levels (that isn't a criticism of hwbot, just recognition of a difficult problem to address given the number of submissions). +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massman Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 Hm, interesting idea I.M.O.G! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der8auer Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 what about having a result "history". Showing that e.g. the result was #1 when submitted and 39 days later it changed to #2 and so on. Like a history graph or table maybe also showing the trophies. So you could always say "hey back then in socket 775 times I was #1". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crew Turrican Posted March 1, 2012 Crew Share Posted March 1, 2012 what about having a result "history". Showing that e.g. the result was #1 when submitted and 39 days later it changed to #2 and so on. Like a history graph or table maybe also showing the trophies. So you could always say "hey back then in socket 775 times I was #1". we had something like that a few years ago, but it's too power intensive on the server i guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der8auer Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Seems like we have to donate for a new server then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumonpathak Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 ^^this...me poor guy or else would have donated some $ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.