zodac

So to avoid HP's influence, any period would need to be before January. So what's wrong with Oct-Nov? It's usually the best period for most teams (except OCAU, since it's summer for them).

It's the most recent timeframe we're able to use (unless you wanna go halfway into Jan, since HPCS only came into play towards the end of the month), and I don't believe a 2 week period is long enough to get any meaningful information.

Either you're joking or there is some implicit assumption in your statement that HPCS will be over by CC.  You want to reward HPCS abuse by NOT including it in a team's base period?
Unless someone has knowledge as to when free HPCS usage will be terminated, it's impossible to adjust for it.  That's why I repeat my statement that the CC cannot be run when free HPCS is active.

not to mention HPCS is not allowing new users to use HPCS for folding right now - only user that have already got it can fold
they want any new users to use HPCS in different ways to test the system 
 
so early adopters got the advantage...teams that learned and jumped on (well orgainized) beat out teams that aren't (like smaller or less organized)
 
and it is also quit possible that free beta HPCS will end prior to CC and any team with baseline(handicap) based on those values could be hurt (those that capitalized more)
 
 
 

zodac
From tomorrow, all 8c systems will be banned, and the PPD will drop substantially.

However, they have also stated that when the "public beta" starts, limits will increase again.  So, we really don't know what will happen with points going up or down.
 
I think we should have a team vote to say whether or not we will participate if HP Cloud Services are available at the time of the CC.

zodac
With no-one knowing just what will happen with HPCS, it's quite difficult to make a decision... :/

I agree - but at the same time, do we want to go into the CC knowing in advance that it will be unfair to some set of teams specifically due to unknowns with HPCS?

Punchy

Okay, I'm just going to throw out another idea.  I think it's pretty clear that there is no way to create a handicap system of any sort that is fair to all sizes and shapes of teams.  Why not acknowledge that and put some degree of randomness into the outcome?  Sort of like the points lotto mentioned earlier, but not totally random, so teams can influence the outcome to some degree.

There seem to be a number of "categories" tossed about:
Total Points (note: directly benefits Stanford)
Total WU (note: directly benefits Stanford)
Production Increase - Handicap System (note: less directly benefits Stanford, depending on team size)
Conversion Percent (note: no benefit to Stanford)

What if we award "tickets" in each category at the end (so if there are 10 teams, the top total points team gets 10 "tickets", the bottom one gets 1 "ticket", top WU team gets 10 tickets, etc etc).  Then all the "tickets" are tossed in a hat and the winner and runner-up are drawn.  So, you can influence the outcome by placing as high as possible in each category to get the most "tickets" in the lottery, but you're still not guaranteed the Jaded Monkey.

This randomness somewhat alleviates the fact that no matter what formula you come up with, it will be biased towards certain teams, partially due to unknowns that may not even be apparent until after the contest begins and so can never be fairly compensated for.

 
That's actually not a bad idea.  Good thinking Punchy! 

zodac

If we agree that I'm right, we can stop and go relax instead. ^_^

see this one post says all there is to know about your objective here, and I agre with punchy it can't be run with HPCS.
being a former co-captain and the only year evga won the CC let me say if your going to do a formula aka "the folding special olympics" then this is what you need to do.
1. everyone knows including zodac EVGA and OCN are top dogs in this race from jump, and so the big adv is not what it once was, aLso HPCS plays a big factor in this.
 
because the points are not the same as last year, and last years formula was clearly a slap in the face of EVGA by other team captains, including the I am always right person here. (the end results last year showed this)
 
either the race needs to be rescheduled thanks to stanford messing with the system of points, nothing new there.
or yo just take last years end of chimp challenge points for the top 3 teams divide it in half (to remove big adv points mostly) the top 3 ppd teams from last year start negative half what they finished with last year. and the rest of the teams start at zero and all teams race to 20 million again the way it was when this CC was a success.
 
so lets say ocn had a total of 20 million points last year and evga had 30 million points at end of competiton then those 2 teams start 10 million and 15 million in the hole.
 
but honestly like punchy is saying I agree and I think this will need to be rescheduled for all teams to be fair sadly.
However the special olympics that the team captains created last year was an embaresment to the whole history of the Chimp Challenge IMHO.
 
My only point is this, make sure you "ALL" get it right this time around and quit over thinking this CC race!!! If the captains do not come up with a way to make it fair and close for all teams, the CC will sadly come to a end as many teams will not be slapped in the face twice and come back to talk about it. So instead of trying to be right, try to be understanding and productive about all the perspectives that go into the next CC even if it is to be rescheduled.

My thoughts on how the top two places should have placed last year... OCN 1st EVGA a danger close 2nd... One more day of production and I think we would have won based on my thoughts...
 
OK..........
 
Why not just simplify it... The entire idea as I understand it is to attract new members/producers and complete more WU's. So with only that in mind please please please consider my thoughts and do not just brush them off because they are not your own. Truly think them through...
 
Have two winners and no fancy handicaps...
 
One winner that is measured purely off of gains... Meaning... Take the last 60-90 day avg's of all participating teams (Individually BTW) and call that the benchmark for each team (Again individually measuring their own data to set their own benchmark). Or Ground zero. Then the pure points gained AND WU's completed are the points. Most points wins...
 
Example... Say these are the Daily Benchmarks (And totally bogus numbers to make the math easy to understand)
 
EVGA... 20,000,000/20,000 (Points/WU's)
[H]... 25,000,000/25,000
OCN... 22,000,000/22,000
 
That is the benchmark for each team.
 
Now... The contest begins... Snapshot of any day... These are the amount of points OVER the benchmark. So if a team does less, they got no points. But no loss of points either... Also.. This means if a team only does 1,000,000/1000 a day based of the avg calculation period we decide on, and now is doing 2,000,000/2000 a day during the contest they are getting 1,001,000 points a day!!!!
 
EVGA... 3,000,000/3000 = 3,003,000 points
[H]... 2,700,000/2900 = 2,702,900 points
OCN... 3,000,000/3001 = 3,003,001 Points.
 
= OCN as the "2012 Chimp Challenge Grand Champion"
 
The other be a random drawing. So all the teams are in a bucket (Use the online random drawing tool) and they are called the "2012 Chimp Challenge Participant Champion"
 
Or just do my first suggestion all by itself and cal it a day.
 
My point is all about gains. New folks... New production. Why base it off of a silly handicap. Allow any participant to be a Champion, and let the team who grows the most have smack talk for a year. Gold old fashioned butt whipping in your face all out ROAR...
 

Afterburner

BTW... I am willing to bet that if anyone had the data from last year and tallied this up... That the finished order would be different than it was and one of the small teams would have been in the running... Anyone got the data? I am happy to run it...

Which numbers are you looking for? I've got the points produced by each team during last year's CC, but nothing on WU count.

Ok, CC2011 points:
 
Evga - 120,279,256
OCN - 107,318,736
TSC! - 45,662,987
OCF - 42,670,316
CPC - 43,947,959
HWC - 40,660,364
TPU - 27,266,335
MPC - 28,575,342
OCAU - 15,149,103
 
As for past points:
Team - April - March
Evga - 550,084,180 - 602,676,084
OCN - 285,712,326 - 274,695,940
TSC! - 203,522,809 - 178,806,061
OCF - 176,871,469 - 176,953,961
CPC - 291,049,547 - 192,995,316
HWC - 63,991,724 - 36,750,882
TPU - 40,563,382 - 46,418,951
MPC - 149,572,593 - 154,315,613
OCAU - 78,284,040 - 66,744,851
 
Hope that comes in handy for you. ;)

Thanks zodiac.... how many days did CC run last year?


And does anyone have record of how the teams placed in 2011?

Very nice idea...^^^ Only issue... Two of the teams have twice the production this year than than did last year as an entire team...
 
Same as my suggestion above hurts the bigger teams in the points race as it is benchmarking off the team AVG... BUT! They can counter that with WU's...
 
Really like these ideas being tossed around...

bobc36

Afterburner

Very nice idea...^^^ Only issue... Two of the teams have twice the production this year than than did last year as an entire team...

Well, then we need to figure out how we can increase our production by the same amount, or else we would lose. the ultimate goal is to fold more WUs, if you look at it that way, then they are doing it better than we are.

Agreed!
 
That is one of the cons to a big team. It takes a lot of effort to turn/gain speed for an Aircraft Carrier than it does a Frigate...

I hate to say this, but whether you call it a baseline or a benchmark, it's still just a handicap in a different form.
AB's idea is kind of neat - it's like my ticket scheme in reverse, without the randomness at the end - but the cynical side of me says that if you do these calculations on a daily basis, teams WILL time their points and WUs to drop on certain days.
One other issue with WU calculations in general is that it's possible to misconfigure a client to generate tons of bad WUs; again I wouldn't put it past someone to do so because the CC has become so much about winning for winning's sake.

BTW... I have received a few comments on my post above (All good BTW) and feel a little clarity is needed...
 
Having a contest with a winner is always a good thing. My comment on not it being about winning was and is more about there being a competitiveness, not getting rid of winning. Having any team (Like a few years ago with the smaller teams) not having a chance to win kind of defeats the whole idea of a winner.
 
However, by focusing on a way for everyone to have a competitive go at it seems to me to be a better path to take than looking for ways to keep any team(s) from winning.
 
No plan will ever be full proof. However, even with me saying that... The focus for any of these plans must be...

• Attracting new producers
• Bringing back previous producers
• Completing more WU's (This does not mean one or two or three small teams jumping onto another team). I mean pure new fresh produced WU's producers!
• Creating awareness in a positive fashion (For example.. I knew of F@H but did not get involved until the CC many years ago. The recruiting made me feel the need to help and I have ever since. Not sure about you, but 34 million is not to shabby and is a lot better than ZERO!)
• Competitive for all participants. Otherwise the idea of this even continuing needs to be evaluated.