zodac formula
#millions +(CCPPD/Handicap) x converision

 
figure on 100 % conversion (for this test)
lets say 
16m PPD
2m Handicap
16 M CCPPD/M + (16MCPPD /2M  team PPD)  
150% PPD
(forget about the small team conversion there - built into team PPD against the CC PPD)
 
now add in the conversion 
it be 125%
 
the problem with formula is that conversion is an issue
ie evga only had 56% conversion
 
so the team penalizes itself for not coming out (ie chimp names & people though formula was biased didn't come out)
that's fine  
that would show up in CC PPD by reduced output
 
by then to add in in the team growth factor again
that's (CC PPD/ handicap) - where handicap was based off team PPD (a natural conversion factor)
(punished a bit again)
 
CC PPD is only partial team  -handicap was based off full team
 
so growth % is (chimp PPD /full est handicap  of PPD) x (chimp PPD/TEAM  PPD)
 
multiplying it conversion we got another penalty
to put bluntly CC PPD^2 / (Team PPD x team PPD /10)
exponential growth - and why it fails
 
if you merger teams and they were over projections you got bonuses for over team PPD and over the conversion
 
- buzz - repeat of last year
 
this year we would at least if we went by CC  have 
(CCPPD /Chimp handicap)x CCPPD/TEAM PPD
which is slightly better because the while team  conversion in handicap is gone
but it doesn't reduce the exponential growth
 
to put simply the team punishes itself for not getting out the team (so PPD down already)
now you want to penalize said team by giving other teams more points exponentially as a factor of their conversion
 
this spread the team farther apart - and doesn't make for close races - and why it was a run away last year
 
the three factors 
 
PPD 
team growth 
conversion (or new membership growth) depending on the format
 
 
I suggested conversion to be Additive
you can have growth (CCPPD/ handicap).... % growth 
 
 
CC PPD+(CCPPD/handicap)+( CCPPD/(10* TEAM PPD))
converision(no more than 10% extra)
 
 
or  CC PPD (1+1/handicap +1/(10*team PPD))
 
( CCPPD/10* TEAM PPD) gives up to  10% conversion bonus
so rather than exponential - I made a linear progression
(way better)
 
you could also devise a weighted system
 
you could use 45% PPD - 45% growth+ 10% conversion
much what the formula above I devised does
 
the point is finding where the break comes(each % threshold) - and you have to realize I don't have good CC data - last few years have had issues (teams not coming out - team mergers)
 
the main thing is conversion should not play a big factor otherwise mergers could run amuck again
 
Small teams can get the double whammy thu team growth and team conversion otherwise
 
you could also run one based on postion for each factor
 
evga was first in PPD we get a 9(first place based on teams+1)
evga was last in conversion we get 1(last place)
 
then you use a similar formula above to weight them
 
you can have badges for PPD, growth or Conversion and make a overall if you wish
 
the dual race was after all PPD(1) and a growth race-conversion race(2)
 

Guys, maybe we need to start-up the EVGA CC Chimp Talk Channel for live discussion as well.  Would that help or is it too much problem to do?  I was just thinking that this Forum posting method might be a bit slow for developing thought and sharing ideas, but maybe I'm just trying to do too much to get this thing moving...

Hey, I'm csm725 from OCN.
In terms of chat, we may want to start an IRC.
It is IRC dot Freenode dot com, channel name is CC2012.
I can't post links (anti-spam) but it's accessible from the web:
webchat DOT freenode DOT com.
 

Xavier, all the best with your Dad.  My wife is on blood thinners 24x7 for clots, so I know of what you speak.  It get's tougher with the elderly and these kinds of things too.  You guys are still in my thoughts and prayers.
 
Back to CC, I'm gonna go out on a bit of limb here and say something that may not be popular.  Unless a "numbers guru" can waltz-in and solve all these calculation and team sizing issues, then I have a suggestion.  Go with either Zodac's or Adak's formula, declare victory (for all of us as Folders) and move on. 
 
Here is why I feel this way and it just hit me like a ton of bricks.  At EVGA, we enjoy the #1 World Folding position each and every day.  CC is simply a gathering of those same World Folders to show what we can do, have some fun, fling the proverbial poo, etc.  If the current formulas are a little too skewed toward small to medium Teams and one of them happens to best one of us larger Teams, then is it so bad for them to have a "day in the sun" with the CC badge?  For me, that answer is "it is OK".  I've said it before, and it keeps coming back to me in different ways.  Our greatest purpose here is to do something out of the ordinary for Science.  We can do that whether we win CC overall, in the middle or just plain place last. 
 
I think most of our Team members (as shared by Opolis above) know this very well and are prepared to just be a part of CC no matter where we place in the contest.  So, for me, I don't really care whether Zodac's or Adak's formula is perfect.  They have at least put forth the effort to create one and unless we have something better to offer, why have day after day pass debating whether a formula is perfect or ultimately fair?  You see, we've had the answer all along and various members have said it across multiple Teams.  We just want to Fold together in CC because they like to do it, even if that means we don't win CC.  So the answer is stop concerning ourselves with the perfect formula and get on with a decision that enables CC to start May 5th (in just 3 weeks). 
 

Edit:  Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, I'm speaking for myself and not necessarily the Team in this post.  
 

Thanks, I figured I could reach out to you guys.
We'll see. I think it's best to just use a formula and start recruiting... it's already too late for OCN to start the normal recruiting and hype=making process...

troy8d
I think everyone is missing the point entirely when trying to come up with a format.  Tossing around formulas is putting the horse before the cart.  We first need to decide what is important.

Troy, you have said a mouthful in that one sentence.  So, how do "we" (meaning a variety of Teams) propose to accomplish deciding what is important?  If we say it, then we need to have a way to do it and do it soon.  I also have to say something for the good of getting Teams to work together.  If we make comments such as "OCN's formula was developed just so they could win this year", we diminish getting these same Teams to consider our ideas because we have already turned them off.  I can't say that I know the motives behind either Zodac's or Adak's formula development.  If we can't trust them, then no Team should be developing these formulas and they should be done by a 3rd party that has no interest in winning the contest.  Now, I know that no 3rd party exists or is likely to, but when the term "we" is used, it carries the weight of a wide group of Folders. 
 
I'm not trying to be hard on you and you have so much more contest development skills than I will ever have.  I'm just saying that unless someone here has a better idea that they can tangibly put on the table, we are simply poking our fingers in the air to criticize that which is being offered.  I'm here to help you with that by the way, and I believe others are too in whatever way we can help to get things moving in the right direction.
 
Edit:  Had to change some things because they didn't exactly come out the way I wanted them to...

texinga

troy8d
I think everyone is missing the point entirely when trying to come up with a format.  Tossing around formulas is putting the horse before the cart.  We first need to decide what is important.

Troy, you have said a mouthful in that one sentence.  So, how do "we" (meaning a variety of Teams) propose to accomplish deciding what is important?  If we say it, then we need to have a way to do it and do it soon.  I also have to say something for the good of getting Teams to work together.  If we make comments such as "OCN's formula was developed just so they could win this year", we diminish getting these same Teams to consider our ideas because we have already turned them off.  I can't say that I know the motives behind either Zodac's or Adak's formula development.  If we can't trust them, then no Team should be developing these formulas and they should be done by a 3rd party that has no interest in winning the contest.  Now, I know that no 3rd party exists or is likely to, but when the term "we" is used, it carries the weight of a wide group of Folders. 

I'm not trying to be hard on you and you have so much more contest development skills than I will ever have.  I'm just saying that unless someone here has a better idea that they can tangibly put on the table, we are simply poking our fingers in the air to criticize that which is being offered.  I'm here to help you with that by the way, and I believe others are too in whatever way we can help to get things moving in the right direction.

Edit:  Had to change some things because they didn't exactly come out the way I wanted them to...

 
I'm not pulling this out of thin air.  If you scroll up to somewhere near the beginning of this thread when zodac was posting, when discussing the formula he first and foremost asked: "who do you think should have won last year?"  I had no answer because I had never looked at the data with the intent of manipulating it to determine a winner.  Then he shared his work with me on developing his formula and his notes clearly indicated he was intent on devising a formula where OCN would finish first and EVGA would finish second.  It was also clear that it was constructed in a rather ad hoc manner.  The final note I remember in the current version of the formula was something to the effect of "OCN finishes first and EVGA finishes third - close enough!" Whats worse is that it shows in the increased discrepancy and unfairness in distribution among the teams under zodac's formula.  Zodac's intent to manipulate the contest to OCN's advantage is one of the main reasons I've been avoiding much of the CC shennanigans. 
 
As I also said, it seems that Adak is working in good faith toward a contest that is fair to all teams involved, but I would like to see where the numbers came from that he is using as that would allow us to determine the metrics he is using.
 
As for what we should use...its all pretty subjective.  Any number of mechanisms would work fine as long as we decide what is important and implement them properly.  But comparing apples to oranges (as we are doing now) only makes things more confusing.

csm725OCN

Thanks, I figured I could reach out to you guys.
We'll see. I think it's best to just use a formula and start recruiting... it's already too late for OCN to start the normal recruiting and hype=making process...

welcome CSM
 
yes it's late for us - we would have prefer a whole month - 
delaying also has the advantage to the smaller teams - we have a tough time mobilizing the masses too
 
I would direct you to look at why I didn't like zodac original formula
an exponential factor within the formula  (it has to be linear)
 
exponential factor hurt low turnover/conversion teams but give bonuses to high membership drive teams (high conversion)
(double punished) against (double rewarded)..it why the formula failed in the previous CC
 
the solution is to go weighted 
something zodac opted for on the last stats discussion pages on the CC
it was something I was trying to describe earlier in the CC forum
 
 
 

texinga

Xavier Zepherious
Can we at least find out where we land on the CC name first as a team
this will help the other teams figure out the position and why teams want to keep it

I tried to see if there was a way to activate a Poll on that question, but I don't see how to do it.  This is a potentially "charged" question/area as we have already seen over at OCN where it came up and has been discussed.  If the answer to that question really has a lot of impact on moving forward or as Troy suggests "deciding what is important", then I'll be happy to answer.  I'm not married to the idea of having to change Folding names just to participate in CC each year and could easily go with the notion to discard that requirement.  Having said this, if the Team feels that it is a big thing to keep, then I will honor that and go with the herd. 

 
that's where Im at - Id like to keep it...but if teams want it gone who am i to stop it
if 5 teams vote to excise it - do we quit?
 
Id say make a last pitch to keep it and push for it
this will resolve part of the problem in developing a format and formula
 
Im gonna work on some numbers for a couple of weighted system again (with CC names)
 
I may post it tonight
 
 
 
 
 

To Troy, I see why you would feel that way now...hmmm doesn't sound too good from what you shared.  I still think we need to try to keep things as positive as possible because I believe there are people at OCN (just like here) that want to do the right things. Sounds like the best method to consider is Adak's at this point.  I will say that I too have been impressed by Adak's interest to find something fair for all.

Afterburner
Example
http://forums.evga.com/tm.aspx?high=&m=1549213&mpage=1#1549213

You the man AB!!  If we want to proceed with a Poll to ask this question, I think most people understand the issue, but for new folks maybe something like this (or a variant)?
 
CC 2012 Team Name/Configuration question. 
 
Brief background:  There are two positions that people have regarding how we participate in Chimp Challenge each year. 
 
One position is to leave things as they have been since the beginning of Chimp Challenge whereby you change your Rig(s) over to the EVGApes name.  A configuration change is required (beginning and end of the contest) and all your points are assigned to that name for the 10-day duration of Chimp Challenge.
 
The other position is to participate in CC without switching your Rig(s) over to a single Team name such as "EVGApes".  No configuration changes are required and your points remain under your Folding Name for the 10-day duration of the contest.
 
Would you prefer to continue the existing method of participation by Folding under the EVGApes name?
 
Would you prefer to change the way we participate in CC and Fold under your own Name?
 
How's that sound...

troy8d
I certainly agree that zodac does not speak for OCN as a whole and believe that we are headed in the right direction.    The question I have is if there is enough time left...

This is a good question.  I've only done the one CC (last year) and don't recall how early you initiated that "get the word out" campaign that we did with all the IM's (5 at a time) .  I've been guessing that we still could pull this off, but am no expert on the timeline either. 
 
The question I have (after reading all the back and forth discussion) is also can these Teams come to agreement anytime soon?  You made another important point that I forgot to acknowledge.  It was basically, develop a solution and do no harm to future CC's.  If we can't get agreement right now, then I'd suggest that we continue the discussions, model some solutions and move CC out to the Fall when it is cooler.  I don't want the legacy of CC to be it was a great idea but failed due to lack of preparation, planning and agreement.  I think what we are seeing is that (at this time, and for some reason) the will, ability, whatever, was not there across the majority of Teams to get this done well ahead of the event.  Coming in at the last minute and agreeing to solutions just to meet a date/deadline doesn't seem to be the right way to make sure CC lives on and grows better to me either.

troy8d

I'm not pulling this out of thin air.  If you scroll up to somewhere near the beginning of this thread when zodac was posting, when discussing the formula he first and foremost asked: "who do you think should have won last year?"  I had no answer because I had never looked at the data with the intent of manipulating it to determine a winner.  Then he shared his work with me on developing his formula and his notes clearly indicated he was intent on devising a formula where OCN would finish first and EVGA would finish second.  It was also clear that it was constructed in a rather ad hoc manner.  The final note I remember in the current version of the formula was something to the effect of "OCN finishes first and EVGA finishes third - close enough!" Whats worse is that it shows in the increased discrepancy and unfairness in distribution among the teams under zodac's formula.  Zodac's intent to manipulate the contest to OCN's advantage is one of the main reasons I've been avoiding much of the CC shennanigans. 

 
Just to answer that bolded section...
 
Yes, the system I was working on was made to show that OCN ended up in first (using last year's numbers). My reasoning for that was pretty clear. I have three factors; this is how OCN fared:
 
1) Absolute points - 2nd in the CC, behind Evga.
2) CC points (which we've all agreed was biased towards smaller teams) - 3rd, behind TPU and HWC (and ahead of much smaller teams).
3) Conversion - 3rd, again behind TPU and HWC.
 
Now, Xavier has said he doesn't like the conversion factor - we could weigh that down, or even remove it totally. But with the system that I was making at the time, OCN scored the best overall, and were first as a result. The remaining positions come down to opinion; Evga could be 2nd if you feel absolute points are more important than handicap points, or HWC would be 2nd if you felt the other way.
 
I'm not stupid... I know the OCN captain making a system that has OCN in first isn't going to go down well with people. Which is why I asked for people's opinion on who should have won last year. Even if you can't answer that, what factors do you feel a CC should be based off of? I answered that question - and it was just my opinion, and I waited quite a long time for replies - while making the formula as fair as possible. However, I get the feeling the system was disregarded by most Evga members when they say it was my idea, and it had OCN in first.
 
I'd also like to point out while I feel my system has the potential (it's simple to understand, not too drastic a change from last year, and benefits big Folding, as well as big relative Folding), I'm not demanding it be used. Nor am I saying it will 100% balance the competition fairly - I think the only way we can do that is stick to a system, and tweak it year or year. However, none of Adak's systems - in my eyes - solve the issue of smaller teams being biased.

voodoo do-er
I hate to but in, but when dose this start ?
I need to prep my desktop as it's been sitting most of the time

May 5th, but at the rate things are not progressing that date is suspect about there being a Chimp Challenge on that day.

zodac
I'm not stupid... I know the OCN captain making a system that has OCN in first isn't going to go down well with people. Which is why I asked for people's opinion on who should have won last year. Even if you can't answer that, what factors do you feel a CC should be based off of? I answered that question - and it was just my opinion, and I waited quite a long time for replies - while making the formula as fair as possible. However, I get the feeling the system was disregarded by most Evga members when they say it was my idea, and it had OCN in first.

I'd also like to point out while I feel my system has the potential (it's simple to understand, not too drastic a change from last year, and benefits big Folding, as well as big relative Folding), I'm not demanding it be used. Nor am I saying it will 100% balance the competition fairly - I think the only way we can do that is stick to a system, and tweak it year or year. However, none of Adak's systems - in my eyes - solve the issue of smaller teams being biased.

Hi Zodac and thanks for stopping-in.  I tell ya, watching the point/counter-point between you and Adak, I don't see a CC happening this May.  Some people on our Team (that we all respect as contest designers) are already saying/thinking that we're already past the point of getting prepared for this years race.  My comment to both you and Adak is that I applaud your willingness to engage this need.  However, you both are so set on your own idea of "what is fair" that there doesn't appear to be any room for negotiation.  You guys are speaking the same points/position over and over with no movement or willingness to bend that I can tell. 
 
I would highly suggest that both of you stop arguing your positions as absolutes and find a way to start saying "what if we changed this or that".  To anyone reading the dialogue between you two, it is a clear stalemate and we have wasted precious time if May 5th was supposed to be doable.  Weeks can't go by with people holding hard to their own ideas and actually get things like this done ahead of a major contest like CC.  The old saying that "you can win the battle and lose the war" applies here.