Suggestion for Rev 4/5/6/99

[K404]

I had half an idea last night

 

What do you guys think about:

 

Award points for a score based on how much of a lead it has over the score it beats. At the moment, the exponential points difference at the top of popular leaderboards IMHO, is skewed. There could be 1 point in score difference and there will be 10 points difference.

 

It might encourage people to stop playing backup games and stop sandbagging generally. It would encourage people to push harder, knowing that big leads get more points. At the moment, if someone can get a certain ranking and not pass the score ahead... they usually stop. It encourages a wee bit of laziness sometimes..... if there was more points (even just... 0.1, 0.2...) for squeezing all they can out of the hardware, despite the ranking not changing... it would make them a more motivated and dare I say it... better... bencher.

 

It should also encourage people to use their MHz as efficiently as possible

 

 

For scores like SPi where many scores are the same...... instead of ranking by submission date, could it be coded to interrogate the CPU MHz box and rank score by lowest MHz? It could be the start of ranking scores by efficiency, which would be nice.

 

I do appreciate HWB will then have to deal with a bunch of guys downclocking for the screeny....... Grrrrrr

 

 

Alternative is to give all the same scores the same joint ranking..... Have...e.g.... 5 guys at 7.00s flat... there is a 5-way tie at rank 178th or...whatever

Edited August 15, 2010 by K404

[richba5tard]

You have some valid points, but winning by a tiny margin is nature of nearly any sport. Except to solve backup games, I do not see any need to change it.

[knopflerbruce]

I like the idea, if you beat a guy by 200 boints you show more skill than if you beat him by 20.

 

My old suggestion was to look at the average score, and give points based on how good your score is compared to that one. That would reward skill, and not just give points based on the rank. Besides... if you're #1 you get a gold cup, that counts alot too.

[Massman]

The percentual increase is a good idea, but has some complications. For instance, what do we do in categories where there are very few results? The average or offset cannnot be determined exactly, so it's possible that someone will get 2x the score of the average only because he tested LN2 on the card and the others only stock air and no overclock.

 

Also, this makes using a 980X with older hardware a lot more beneficial since it'll allow you to beat previous scores by quite a large margin. Also, previous good scores will loose points more quickly, I think.

 

Ranking by efficiency is not possible because there's no controlling mechanism. People will downclock just to get more points and we won't be able to do anything about it. I don't see why we should give people an equal amount of points either (it kinda defeats the concept of getting people to push harder) ... if you want more points, you have to beat the score in front of you, not equal it.

[K404]

Well... the rankings with only a few results could stick with the current layout for points. Am I right in saying that with the current algorithm, there are break-points for how many points a leaderboard gets? The revision for points could/should(?) apply only to the more popular categories.

 

 

980x with older hardware.... same as with any new hardware- the early adopters get an early advantage in the leaderboards, as the use of the new top-end chip increases, more scores are submitted, the leaderboard evens out. Popular hardware categories (mainly GPU) will always get scores submitted to them when new CPUs are released because people like the competition..... and the points.

 

 

Sadly I agree on the downclocking, but to quote:

 

if you want more points, you have to beat the score in front of you, not equal it.

 

Thats the way its always been- IMHO your point is mute..... at some point people hit their max and theres still a score *just* beyond their reach.... but the next score improvement might be 5 places higher if they max out in the "wrong" place.

[knopflerbruce]

It's also possible to use other, similar HW to determine the "quality" of the results in not-so-heavily benched categories. For example... when 990x comes out, you can use 980x scores in the beginning. I guess this would be complicated, but in theory it's a much better idea than to just look at the ranks when rewarding a score with boints.

 

We already have the new CPU on older GPU "problem", but I doubt it'll be much worse if you use the average. If there are more boints to get, then more people will bench with the new CPUs, and then the average result gets better. Maybe it would suck for those who used older gear, but I really doubt they get much boints today anyway...

[Massman]

Do note that this system would also make an effect in the other direction: now you can aim for 2nd (if 1st is out of reach) and know what kind of points you'll have. When someone else comes along and destroys the competition, it's possible you'll lose a lot of points for being 2nd.

 

It would certainly make things a lot more complicated, I think.

[Mr.Scott]

Maybe it would suck for those who used older gear, but I really doubt they get much boints today anyway...

Thanks for the idea of putting another dagger in my team dude.

We freakin' appreciate that.

[Ol'Bud]

Well... the rankings with only a few results could stick with the current layout for points. Am I right in saying that with the current algorithm, there are break-points for how many points a leaderboard gets? The revision for points could/should(?) apply only to the more popular categories.

980x with older hardware.... same as with any new hardware- the early adopters get an early advantage in the leaderboards, as the use of the new top-end chip increases, more scores are submitted, the leaderboard evens out. Popular hardware categories (mainly GPU) will always get scores submitted to them when new CPUs are released because people like the competition..... and the points.

 

Sadly I agree on the downclocking, but to quote:

 

Thats the way its always been- IMHO your point is mute..... at some point people hit their max and theres still a score *just* beyond their reach.... but the next score improvement might be 5 places higher if they max out in the "wrong" place.

 

Actually WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make except that you accumulate more points for yourself or your team;

 

Because a winning position is still a winning position NO mater how many points you accumulate or are scored with.

 

So changing the scoring system to accommodate the Ego of a particular bencher is not making any sense to me.

 

Please elucidate if I missed your point.

[K404]

maybe I mis-read the tone of your post, but it comes across as excessively aggressive.....

 

 

You missed my point.

 

In a lot of cases, I think it will benefit the guy in 2nd, 3rd place as much... or more... than the guy in 1st place.

 

Popular category: gold is 50 points, silver is 40, bronze is 33. It doesn't take into account the difference in scores. Maybe someone takes gold by 1 point..... is that worth 10 points? IMHO.... nope.

 

Actually.... Its about the guy in 2nd place more than the guy in 1st..... Most categories have a fairly tight grouping of scores.... maybe could be classed as making the guy in 2nd place feel less bad?

 

 

 

Hell... awarding points and cups is stroking egos. Awarding popular categories more than categories with 20 submissions is stroking ego. World record points... stroking ego. May as well make the ego-stroke proportional to the lead/ deficit

Edited August 15, 2010 by K404

[Mr.Scott]

You mis-read nothing. It was aggressive. Mostly because the guys who bench older hardware are sick and tired of taking it in the ass points wise because the guys who bench new hardware are un-happy with their points. Why must we cater to new hardware all the time? Can't we just leave the system alone?

[K404]

A/ you made your choices for the categories you participate in.

 

B/ If its unpopular hardware, why should it be heavily awarded?

 

C/ Cater to new hardware? What company gives a shit about s478? s462? What OC competition will feature that hardware to attract attention? Upcoming 28nm parts must make you twitch with anger!

 

 

 

 

Points clearly aren't motivating you... else you'd be benching popular hardware categories, right? If its not your motivation, why do you care so much about how they are rewarded?

 

Unpopular categories would be excluded from my idea because there probably wouldnt be enough info/ enough submissions to guage good scores from bad.

[Mr.Scott]

A/ you made your choices for the categories you participate in.

 

Correct.

B/ If its unpopular hardware, why should it be heavily awarded?

Because it takes just as much time and skill to overclock decently.....maybe more than todays hardware.

C/ Cater to new hardware? What company gives a shit about s478? s462? What OC competition will feature that hardware to attract attention? Upcoming 28nm parts must make you twitch with anger!

I see.....this would be about attracting more sponsorships. I should have known it would come back to that.

else you'd be benching popular hardware categories, right?

FWIW, we bench in popular categories also. It's just not our primary interest.

[K404]

Same as any other event... old/classic gear gets its own specialist event or gets a little corner or a mainstream event.

 

Airshows... racing events... any technology show.... most of the focus is on the latest and greatest. It gets the most interest.

 

 

 

 

How will this be better than what I have now?

 

Is it value for money?

 

What is the best that technology can offer NOW?

 

 

 

 

Older platforms are from a time before HWB... not so many people are using them any more on a day to day basis and the ones who are probably dont care about getting the best performance from them. A reasonable % of the parts aren't even easy to find on Ebay, or aren't a good price for the performance.

 

 

 

 

The latest and greatest gets the attention, gets the sales and yes, from a competitive OC point of view, will bring more sponsors.

 

Thing is though... If I go to a company and say "I have 2000 hardware points on HWB"....

 

That means NOTHING to them

 

If I say... "I have 100 top 5 results on HWB, in some of the most popular hardware categories"

 

That has a much clearer context.

 

I dont think points make sponsors..... proof ob ability in relevant categories does...

 

 

 

I believe the points awarded for a score should be proportional to the scores around about. Its not necessarily about more points for the big hitters.... unless they've clearly EARNED it. I believe in being awarded for work that is clearly well done too I think most people believe that

Edited August 15, 2010 by K404

[Kal-EL]

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

[Mr.Scott]

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Exactly. Thanks for the simplified version.

[rickss69]

A/ you made your choices for the categories you participate in.

 

B/ If its unpopular hardware, why should it be heavily awarded?

 

C/ Cater to new hardware? What company gives a shit about s478? s462? What OC competition will feature that hardware to attract attention? Upcoming 28nm parts must make you twitch with anger!

 

 

 

 

Points clearly aren't motivating you... else you'd be benching popular hardware categories, right? If its not your motivation, why do you care so much about how they are rewarded?

 

Unpopular categories would be excluded from my idea because there probably wouldnt be enough info/ enough submissions to guage good scores from bad.

 

K404 - I can vouch for ClassicPlatforms prowness in overclocking the older hardware. They have dug much further than most OC's of todays genre. They took a serious hit in the last revamp and I see no need for them to take another...leave it alone I say.

[romdominance]

I think this sport is only partially skill, moreover your connections for good components.

The system already awards points by margin in the global area which most of us are most involved in anyway. Sandbagging in contests will never go away, its the nature of that beast. Leave it be.

[Patch]

K404, I think things should stay the same for a different reason.

 

The large point differential in 1st, 2nd and 3rd helps make me try harder. It is part of what stimulates that extra effort you mention.

 

I think spreading the points out more will detract from the "close but no cigar" feeling. It feels great to see someone get very very close to your gold, but fall short. It also makes me seriously respect scores I try and try to beat, but just can't.

 

The big point gaps make it just a little bit more fun.

[Ol'Bud]

 

maybe I mis-read the tone of your post, but it comes across as excessively aggressive.....

 

 

If your way of doing things is to make accusatory statements about someones level of Aggression because you read a post and have some sort of Extra-ordinary ability to reach inside someones head and detect aggression;

Then you need your head examined by Competent Psychiatric Authority so that you can be appropriately treated and Stabilised.

I'm not a Scott,

I'm an Irishman,Direct and to the point.

Please refrain from Feminine Accusatory Techniques with me.

As others have said in posts since I last posted,

K.I.S.S. " Keep it Simple Stupid" !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

..

[Massman]

moreover your connections for good components.

 

I think you're greatly overestimating the effect of having someone that is willing to send you one piece of hardware

[K404]

If your way of doing things is to make accusatory statements about someones level of Aggression because you read a post and have some sort of Extra-ordinary ability to reach inside someones head and detect aggression;

Then you need your head examined by Competent Psychiatric Authority so that you can be appropriately treated and Stabilised.

I'm not a Scott' date='

I'm an Irishman,Direct and to the point.

Please refrain from Feminine Accusatory Techniques with me.

As others have said in posts since I last posted,

K.I.S.S. " Keep it Simple Stupid" !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

..[/quote']

 

What I wanted to say was watch the way you talk to me. I had an idea... if you dont like it, tactfully explain why instead of being a dick I was trying to be tactful.

 

 

 

Its ok though. Added to my ignore list This isn't the first time some comments from some particular guys have really wound me up, so im gonna put a blanket over (my) problem.

Edited August 16, 2010 by K404

[K404]

K404 - I can vouch for ClassicPlatforms prowness in overclocking the older hardware. They have dug much further than most OC's of todays genre. They took a serious hit in the last revamp and I see no need for them to take another...leave it alone I say.

 

Hey I didnt come up with the idea to deliberately hurt their scores Changes usually affect *someone* negatively.... just bad luck. Whatever changes happen/are proposed in the future, I dont think HWB will scrap them to avoid hurting the scores/ rankings of 1-2 teams.

 

Rev2 wasn't entirely kind of XS for example....

[Massman]

Then you need your head examined by Competent Psychiatric Authority so that you can be appropriately treated and Stabilised.

 

You can whatever nationality you want; you can have whatever characteristic you want; heck, you can think any way you want. Just don't stoop to this level ... and have a little bit of respect of fellow members.

 

That's just wrong.

[Ol'Bud]

You can whatever nationality you want; you can have whatever characteristic you want; heck, you can think any way you want. Just don't stoop to this level ... and have a little bit of respect of fellow members.

 

That's just wrong.

 

Quote the whole thing Massman,you prick!!

 

Are you and her Lovers or something??

 

Go back and read the whole post of mine and come back and apologize.

 

my initial post was respectful,

 

even if you did not like it.

Cease and desist.