troy8d

Alright chums lets do this...LEEEEEEROOOOOOOOYYYYY!

adak
Absolutely not!

We've seen from the polls, that the vast majority of the teams and folders want to keep their own folding names while they race, AND doing that, speeds up what the teams need to do to fully participate in the CC, HUGELY. No passkeys to give out and qualify, no folding rigs to change over the folding handle, etc.

The "time pressure" argument, is bogus. The new "no name change needed to race in the CC" idea, is faster, not slower.

The ONLY captain that has been actively campaigning to keep the old "you must change your name" scheme, is Zodac, who won't even put up a poll for it in her team.

Huh??

Does that sounds like a good reason to stick with the obsolete system to you? 

My team voted 100% to change to the "no folding name change required to race in the CC" idea, and I'm not going against that, because Zodac would personally prefer it. Not next year, this year.

Standing here in my CC captain's stead, I have to represent my team.

adak
Given this incredibly eluding explanation, how can you say that it's easier for bigger teams to grow faster? If the previous year's production is large, it means you need more points to get the same 1% growth as a smaller team. For example, say another team has a production of 1000, they need to do 1010 to get 1% growth. 101 minus 100 = 1. 1010 minus 1000 = 10. 10 is larger than 1. 

Sorry that you couldn't see the tables before, but don't make disingenuous comments just to be critical.
Not just being critical. You just didn't understand my question, so you go smarmy. 

Moving on:

The "Growth" number should be either an absolute number (2011 points - 2010 points for instance), or a relative ratio (fraction or percent). In your equation, you're mixing the two together, which is odd. Let me think about it, I'm falling asleep here, atm.

"Stamina" is not a good measure. Teams with poor "stamina" will give poor performance, and that already shows up clearly in the stats. 

Edit: The "growth" number uses the 2010 points from the CC, OK. But going back to that number for the second time, is incorrect. What is it supposed to do? Why is it being done? 

It can't be defended (that division by the same number you used in the subtraction for the growth number) because it gives you a "magical" or nonsense number. If you want to put the growth factor into a certain range, use a constant number and multiply or divide as you wish, for all the teams, with that SAME number. You can't use a number to find a percent or ratio of growth, and then just decide to use it again to divide by, when it's a different number for each team, and has no real meaning.  

zodac
Depends - if we can get the majority of teams to agree to the current set up (CC names, Points/Growth/Conversion categories, using the geometric mean), I think May 15th would be doable.
Your poll here clearly shows people would rather the CC names weren't used, and with the Stamina category, we might have something else to discuss fi we wanna look into it further. We just need to decide when to stop suggesting things, and when to say "this is what we want this year".
Otherwise we're probably looking at this year's CC (and probably all following ones) in Autumn some time.

zodac

BTW, Gryphon, am I right in thinking your stamina category (with a 0% cap) will end up as a method of decreasing points for teams if they tail off towards the end of the event?

Because when a team gets discouraged in day 7/8 and knows they're not gonna move up much, we'd be hurting them twice (lack of points, and lack of "stamina"). While it might be a bit more appealling to abuse, I think it might be a fairer system if it was the opposite - keeping stamina through the 10 days would increase your points.

I might well be mistaken though, so apologies if I'm just reading it wrong. :P

zodac

Ok, so it reduces from 100pts as the stamina drops off, rather than going up.

What about a team that drops to 90% on day two, because they had a lot of -bigadv building up, and very few were dropped (normally, not because they were timing them) - they wouldn't be able to get back up past 100% the next say, would they? So although they were producing the points, just by luck and timing, they were counted on another day.

That team would lose 10% that one day, but wouldn't be able to regain it anywhere.

texinga

A revealing read (to me) over at OCN regarding the Chimp Names and maybe why we are not moving forward...
http://www.overclock.net/...imp-challenge-2012/190

theGryphon

zodac

Ok, so it reduces from 100pts as the stamina drops off, rather than going up.

What about a team that drops to 90% on day two, because they had a lot of -bigadv building up, and very few were dropped (normally, not because they were timing them) - they wouldn't be able to get back up past 100% the next say, would they? So although they were producing the points, just by luck and timing, they were counted on another day.

That team would lose 10% that one day, but wouldn't be able to regain it anywhere.

No, no, there is no such thing as "losing 10 points on day two". Please see post #632.
The measure first calculates 3-day moving averages, so that daily spikes are absorbed.That is why it starts calculating at day 4.
Then, it combines these moving horizon dynamics into a single figure using a geometric mean. These two steps makes it so that one-day anomalies (like a number of bigadvs dropping on the same day) have almost no affect, even if the anomalies are sizable.
See for example T32monkeys in the table in #632. There is a single day (day 8) where their production is less than expected and they get a 0.896 (89.6%) and their Stamina is still very large at 98.4%. 

Just to clarify maybe, Stamina is not calculated cumulatively, meaning if one day performance lacks (like T32monkeys getting an 89.6%) it does not mean the Stamina has dropped to 89.6% and it can only get worse. No, it is calculated using a geometric mean so that all the day-by-day performances are incorporated (because that's what makes sense). The only way to get a bad Stamina score is if the team consistently does bad (like EVGA and OCN in the table in #632). That's why I say, see the "points per update" graph in CC2011, and tell me which teams you think lacked in stamina, and this Stamina measure will capture that. 

zodac

Ok, I get that. Sounds fine with me then. :)

Your last line leads me to ask though - since it's not calculated during the event, how about we add it as a bonus instead of as an entire category, since it's unlike points/growth/conversion, which can be tracked day-by-day.

Maybe directly as bonus points (out of 100)?

Just a thought - I'm happy enough with the calculation though. ;) 

theGryphon

zodac

Ok, I get that. Sounds fine with me then. :)

Your last line leads me to ask though - since it's not calculated during the event, how about we add it as a bonus instead of as an entire category, since it's unlike points/growth/conversion, which can be tracked day-by-day.

Maybe directly as bonus points (out of 100)?

Just a thought - I'm happy enough with the calculation though. ;) 

I can help with the tracking. I mean it can be calculated in a rolling horizon way. The first score will be calculated on Day 4, then on Day 5 another score, and I can calculate a geometric mean for Days 4 and 5. Then, after day 6, for days 4, 5, and 6, and so on. It would give a sense of "where are we now", but the actual Stamina score would be the one that's calculated after the competition is over.

texinga

zodac

I've already commented on this in the captains' forum. As I said there, my role is to represent my team, but that doesn't just mean accepting all of their demands. For the good of the CC - in my eyes -  CC names should be kept, since it's a vital teamwork element.

Regardless, it's hardly the issue. As I said on OCN, I only have one voice out of the captains - if it needs to go to a vote between the 8 teams, then you have OCN's answer. If the remaining captains decide to remove the CC name, then we'll do that. What's holding things up is that we're not getting definitive replies from other teams.

I can deal with the people who are unhappy on my team.

Huh...maybe I just misunderstood you when you said this to your team members just today?  Sounded like you were saying "the name" was the problem.

"Well, the categories aren't the sticking point - the name (and subsequent categories) are. If we could come to an agreement on the CC names, we'd be almost done, but we haven't. :P

Just for the record, I'm not pushing for any one position for this years CC on the "name".  I'm simply trying to identify what the heck is holding everything up and what could be done about it to get things moving.