Here's what I posted back on Feb. 26 :

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.

 
People didn't like the randomness part, so if we ignore that and simply award placings based on your "ticket" total, is that where this discussion is heading?

Kinda my idea. You get a certain number of game points for your placing and whichever team has the most game points at the end is the winner. The handicap will be there in itself if you break down the divisions right.

Similar to what troyd was saying earlier then?
 
What about your hardware divisions? Not gonna include them?

Punchy


Here's what I posted back on Feb. 26 :

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.

People didn't like the randomness part, so if we ignore that and simply award placings based on your "ticket" total, is that where this discussion is heading?

 yes there was even from ocau
 
best PPD - Monkey Testicles.jpeg
best growth - Monkey Brain.jpeg
best WU output - Banana.jpeg
best overall - CC Trophy.jpeg
Last Place - The Dreaded Monkey Paw.jpeg
 
and as for the ticket idea that is another weighted system
you weight by position and then you weight for overall
some average between the categories
(it also be simpler to understand)
 
I mentioned that in the CC forums as one alternative
 
it would closen up the race and make nothing of distance between PPD - it be about positions
and you can award based on ocau idea awards for each
 
like I said ideas were floated - by no one bit
 
 
Yes Im not dead yet..Im around... gonna leave to go up and check on the old man
 
just don't let your tempers get the better of your. I definiotely don't want to PO teams and people
that is not the reason for having the CC. it''s to build bridges, make friends and grow the contest and folding in general
 
fighting with the other teams sort of kills it
I just wish everyone would just drop the idea they have to win and just do it because it's the right thing to do
 
this is exactly what killed our last competition internally
it's the mudslinging... it's one reason the CC is failing
 
 

zodac


Similar to what troyd was saying earlier then?

What about your hardware divisions? Not gonna include them?

Im working on a system for that right now. I would say in the next day or two at most I can have that posted. I have to figure out how to break down the hardware and how to infuse the client limitation into that. But heading for that basic idea works. What happened with last years formula, lets use this analogy. Youre trying to declare a world-wide all out arms race. CAn you pick off the top of youre head who is the obvious top 5? China, Russia, USA, UK, Germany. There may be a few more but let's just use that as an example. Now there is no way in hell that Libya or French Gyuana or Armenia can compete toe-to-toe with the big countries unless you had severe handicaps. Basically you cant have a formula for a points race that works for every team. Even if you do get something dialed down where it works perfectly, the first deviation along along your "constants" throws the entire thing off and ruins the formula. I would be glad to see progress towards the category or division idea simply for the sake that I believe it will relieve some of the stress of figuring out how to write the handicaps and having to predict off of last years CC and wondering if teams merging will effect it or not. 

Xavier, in response to the divisions you suggested, you can't have a WU output category.
 
WU count goes up for failed WUs; you could set up some computers just to keep failing units, and they'd be counted.

The thing that I think is getting overlooked is getting small folders on board. THey get kind of...overwhelmed and think that their contribution wont change the outcome any. I have several friends that fold and have that opinion exactly when I try to get them interested in CC. The categories Im looking at dont look at total WUs, total team points, team PPD, conversion rate, or anything like that because, people like to win. You can say its about the cause and thats all well and good. I myself am going to keep folding 24/7 no matter what happens. But when you run a competition, people want to believe that they stand a fair chance to win if they work hard enough. You either have to take out the competition part or take out the part where its "for the cause". A few thousand years of recorded history proves that humans are addicted to being winners (hush with the Charlie Sheen comments in your head). So create something that allows more people to win. More people will participate and push themselves harder which will benefit the team and ultimately FAH. Think of it like a car show or a livestock show. There are several divisions and each division has a winner. Then you have grand champions over a few groups that are similar and the you have best in show, etc. This promotes competition among the different classes or divisions along with the overall competition between the teams. 

Yes I realize that...i was suggested tho... that's all  I was saying
 
if teams could actually control themselves and refrain from dropping WU's intentionally it could be used tho. 
After all lost work is useless - because it delays Stanfords work since they have to re-issue the WU's
 
you could also add one for New members (new members since the CC started) . one of the reasons we hold it to gain new folders
 
but this also could be manipulated as well
 
it's not like we are winning actual money or a physical prize -
but do we have to cheat to win?
 
that actually have to come up the factors and drop others because we know people will cheat?
It's sad isn't it.. that we actually have to do that sort of thing
 
 
 

Xavier Zepherious

that actually have to come up the factors and drop others because we know people will cheat?
It's sad isn't it.. that we actually have to do that sort of thing

Well, we do need to watch out for these things. It only takes one person to do it, and that could ruin things a lot more than us having to limit the amount of factors.

Reading through this thread, I had the impression that Troy's idea was liked most (at least it suited well with most), except that there is a weighing issue between the different categories. So, I took the liberty of modifying Troy's system (http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=1398085&mpage=15#1550134) by simply introducing a "weighed relative points" scheme. See if you like it:
 
CCC - Categorized Chimp Challenge 


All teams compete in 3 (or more categories).  Suggestion: 

• Total points
• Conversion percentage
• Chimp Challenge growth (percentage increase over last year's CC)

• Any other relevant, measurable factor teams value

At the end of the competition, each team places in all categories, and the team with the best overall performance is crowned "King of the Chimps" and receives this year's jaded monkey.  Best overall performance is determined by the highest combined rank in the contest, taking into account their relative performance in each category. 
  
4 Team Example: 
Place    Total Points (mil)    Conversion (%)     Growth (%)
1            Team A: 140                   Team C: 90              Team B:  60
2            Team C: 110                   Team D: 80             Team C:   40
3            Team D:   80                   Team B: 70              Team A:  30 
4            Team B:   70                   Team A: 60              Team D:  20
Total:                    400                                   300                              150
 
Relative Standings:
Divide by the "Total Row"  above, then multiply by 100 (to find percentage in total)
Place    Total Points               Conversion                      Growth
1            Team A:  35.0                   Team C:  30.0              Team B:   40.0
2            Team C:  27.5                   Team D:  26.7             Team C:   26.7
3            Team D:  20.0                   Team B:  23.3              Team A:  20.0 
4            Team B:   17.5                   Team A: 20.0              Team D:  13.3

Scoring: 
Team A wins the Points. 
Team C wins the Conversion. 
Team B wins Growth. 
  
Final Score: 
Team A's final score: 35 + 20 + 20 = 75.0 
Team B's final score: 17.5 +  23.3 + 40 = 80.8
Team C's final score: 27.5 + 30 + 26.7 = 84.2 
Team D's final score: 20 + 26.7 + 13.3 = 60.0
  
Team C wins the overall challenge. 
 
It is true that each category is weighed with the same weight of 1/3 (one third), however the performance of a team within each category is directly taken account. I suppose this is the main issue, and this modification takes care of that.
 

Please welcome Devdog51 (Chris) to the role of working as a CC Co-Captain along with Xavier and the rest of us that are ready to help.  Chris has volunteered to help out since Xavier needs to attend to his father right now, and I just want to thank him for that willingness.  I've checked with some of the (what I like to call) "EVGA Elders" and they are all OK with allowing Chris to represent us in the CC Captains Forum.  Chris's role will be similar to what Xavier has been doing and that is to be our conduit into the CC Captains Forum.  He will work with us on decisions that represent our Team and bring back to us pertinent information that we need to know.  I have assured him that he is not alone and that we have a great group (Team) of people here that will help him as we try to move forward with this year's CC.
 
Thank-you Chris for volunteering and we look forward to working with you on this one! 

And thank you for your support as well. Ill try to fill in Xaviers shoes as best as I can but thats going to be a challenge in itself.

Please take a look at the idea in message #460 above, before it goes deep into the abyss of ignored posts/ideas.

theGryphon


Please take a look at the idea in message #460 above, before it goes deep into the abyss of ignored posts/ideas.

That's actually a perfect start towards the direction that I am personally trying to push for. I think that its simple enough and effective. There might be some that argue though that it promotes the most mediocre team. If a team gets a consistent average across all three categories, it might have enough points to upset a team that did better on one of them, fair on the second and horrible on the third. Its something to try out though.

devdog51

theGryphon


Please take a look at the idea in message #460 above, before it goes deep into the abyss of ignored posts/ideas.

That's actually a perfect start towards the direction that I am personally trying to push for. I think that its simple enough and effective. There might be some that argue though that it promotes the most mediocre team. If a team gets a consistent average across all three categories, it might have enough points to upset a team that did better on one of them, fair on the second and horrible on the third. Its something to try out though.

 
No, it's not that it's promoting the most mediocre team (what does it mean anyway?). It's promoting the team that does well in all three categories. It says that if you're best in only one category but suck in the other two, don't expect to win the CC. Isn't this what you would like to see, when incorporating different categories? I mean, isn't it the whole point?
 
It's telling the same story as Troy's original proposal, just adding the relative performance in each category, so that not only "being 1st" in a category matters, but also "by how much".
 
 
 

Fellas, there are some things that I haven't seen answered (not formula related), but process related.  I can't get a solid feel for the following questions about CC 2012 and thought I'd toss them out here for your thoughts/comments.
 

1. Do we have agreement from within our Team if we are truly prepared to enter CC at this late date (time to effectively get the word out/recruit)?  If the answer is "yes we have time", then just how much time do we and the other Captains have to arrive at agreement?  The answer to that question might help us focus upon how elaborate or simple the contest needs to be if it is to be launched May 5th.
2. Do we still need to take/create a Poll on whether people want to change their configs over to EVGAapes or not for CC?  We have seemed to embrace asking that question, and at times people have thought it had some impact upon CC design, but there has been no movement on it.

There may be more questions hanging out in the wind that need to amswered.  These are just a couple that arisen lately and don't seem to get answered.  Maybe nobody knows...

theGryphon

devdog51

theGryphon


Please take a look at the idea in message #460 above, before it goes deep into the abyss of ignored posts/ideas.

That's actually a perfect start towards the direction that I am personally trying to push for. I think that its simple enough and effective. There might be some that argue though that it promotes the most mediocre team. If a team gets a consistent average across all three categories, it might have enough points to upset a team that did better on one of them, fair on the second and horrible on the third. Its something to try out though.

No, it's not that it's promoting the most mediocre team (what does it mean anyway?). It's promoting the team that does well in all three categories. It says that if you're best in only one category but suck in the other two, don't expect to win the CC. Isn't this what you would like to see, when incorporating different categories? I mean, isn't it the whole point?

It's telling the same story as Troy's original proposal, just adding the relative performance in each category, so that not only "being 1st" in a category matters, but also "by how much".

 
You could call the winner in that system the "best balanced" team.  However, I'd have to say that using the scaled points, rather than simply the placing in each category, there could be gigantic differences in the scores for actual points, that could outweigh all the other categories combined.
 
Independent of theGrypon's idea, I'd also like to point out that total WUs could be used in a contest where people did not fold under chimp names.  It would be fairly easy to find and remove individuals that were cheating.  So, you trade total WUs for conversion percentages.  Conversion percentages do not benefit Stanford in any way; total WUs do; which is more important for this contest?  It really goes back to who you want to win - your own team, or Stanford?

devdog51

theGryphon


Please take a look at the idea in message #460 above, before it goes deep into the abyss of ignored posts/ideas.

That's actually a perfect start towards the direction that I am personally trying to push for. I think that its simple enough and effective. There might be some that argue though that it promotes the most mediocre team. If a team gets a consistent average across all three categories, it might have enough points to upset a team that did better on one of them, fair on the second and horrible on the third. Its something to try out though.

 
If you are representing our team, you should not be focusing on pushing your own personal agenda.  I am not sure whether gryphon's suggestion is an improvement or a step backward.  I'd have to run some numbers to see how it would play out in last year's CC both ways.  That is, unless someone else is able to do so...

Punchy

Independent of theGrypon's idea, I'd also like to point out that total WUs could be used in a contest where people did not fold under chimp names.  It would be fairly easy to find and remove individuals that were cheating.  So, you trade total WUs for conversion percentages.  Conversion percentages do not benefit Stanford in any way; total WUs do; which is more important for this contest?  It really goes back to who you want to win - your own team, or Stanford?

 
 
At the moment I'm pretty neutral on the Chimp vs Individual name debate.  I do the conversion percentage is a better metric if we have it available and you can make the argument that it improves team morale and Stanford wins in the same manner - just indirectly.  But, I also see WUs as a viable alternative if we choose to go the individual route.  Nice suggestion Punchy!

devdog51


The thing that I think is getting overlooked is getting small folders on board. THey get kind of...overwhelmed and think that their contribution wont change the outcome any. I have several friends that fold and have that opinion exactly when I try to get them interested in CC. The categories Im looking at dont look at total WUs, total team points, team PPD, conversion rate, or anything like that because, people like to win. You can say its about the cause and thats all well and good. I myself am going to keep folding 24/7 no matter what happens. But when you run a competition, people want to believe that they stand a fair chance to win if they work hard enough. You either have to take out the competition part or take out the part where its "for the cause". A few thousand years of recorded history proves that humans are addicted to being winners (hush with the Charlie Sheen comments in your head). So create something that allows more people to win. More people will participate and push themselves harder which will benefit the team and ultimately FAH. Think of it like a car show or a livestock show. There are several divisions and each division has a winner. Then you have grand champions over a few groups that are similar and the you have best in show, etc. This promotes competition among the different classes or divisions along with the overall competition between the teams. 

 
I believe you are thinking about this the wrong way.  We are not a team of super-folders.  In fact, we have very few of them.  Compare our top 20 to [H]'s top 20.  We are a team built a large number of small folders making their own small contributions.  Our strength has always been our numbers and when we have remained united, we have been unstoppable.  Not everyone can be a hero, and there is a great deal of satisfaction knowing that you did your part the best you could.  If you insist on more than that, perhaps you have spent too much time immersed in pop-culture lately...
 
While it would be great if you could devise a clever metric that measures this, I seriously doubt it can be done without trivializing certain aspects of the contest.  This competition is not geared toward the individual folder, small or large.  It is a massive battle between the top folding teams and at the end of the day no one individual is going to win or lose the competition for their team.  United we stand, divided we fall...

Punchy


Here's what I posted back on Feb. 26 :

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.

People didn't like the randomness part, so if we ignore that and simply award placings based on your "ticket" total, is that where this discussion is heading?

Apologies, I wasn't aware of your post.

I just some ran the numbers. I took the folding data from CC 2010 as a reference for growth rates. I know in 2010 it was a different format (till 20 mil), but I took the daily PPD as the basis and multiplied it by 10 (as in 10 days of folding in CC 2011). This is not an accurate reference point but it works to show the system.
 
Results are attached below, ranked according to "Final Points". Don't get caught with who won, or should have won. The point is that this system works very well.
 
Edit: Sorry, table didn't paste well.

Attachment(s)

Attachments are not available: Download requirements not met

We are getting closer... And good work Gryphon 

Thanks AB!
By the way, what I propose is just a modification of Troy's idea, and it should work no matter what categories are decided on, which might be too late to discuss for this year.
 
Ideally, I would like to have number of WU's to be included, but given that Stanford's WU count system is bugged (it counts bad WU's too, why? idk), it's not possible to include AFAIK. That is unless there is some other data Stanford is providing...
 
That said, I'm not sure I understand how anyone would be able to differentiate between the hardware by looking at the data provided by Stanford. There are talks above, about this, that's why I'm saying...
 

Alright, Ive been away sorry guys, I wasnt around to answer. As far as pushing an idea, its simply an idea that I would like to personally promote and see how everyone likes it. I am not trying to overrule the majority voice of EVGA for my own personal agenda. Also I'm sorry , I thought there were more super folders on the team. I simply look at the numbers on EOC and see a lot of people over the 50k mark. Back to the first issue, troy. I think that a entirely new system is exactly whats needed and it will promote new folders to join and more competition between more folders. There's an old saying that if you ever want to find new ways to do something better, make it into a contest. The more competition then, the more folding. Like I said, this is merely my opinion. If no one else agrees, then fine. Gryphon, Im not disagreeing with you on your system, I was just thinking of a question that might come up if someone decides to pick it apart. Im working on my format and its going to be proposed to the everyone for next years CC. Everyone seems to think that such a change is too drastic in this short of notice.

Mornin' Fellas.  I think we also need to have some sort of method/plan to reach agreement on these ideas and give Chris something to take back to the Captains Forum (if that is where we are headed with these latest ideas).  I know you are still working through the ideas and I'm not here to rush that, just think we also have to arrive at some decisions soon too.  May 5th is approaching fast...unless we are working on this stuff for next years CC.

I think the issue of it being short notice isn't too big a deal. Once we finalise a system that all teams are agreeable to, we can discuss timing. It's been requested for the last few years that we puch back the CC to a later, cooler date, so perhaps this is an opportunity to do that.

theGryphon


I just some ran the numbers. I took the folding data from CC 2010 as a reference for growth rates. I know in 2010 it was a different format (till 20 mil), but I took the daily PPD as the basis and multiplied it by 10 (as in 10 days of folding in CC 2011). This is not an accurate reference point but it works to show the system.

Results are attached below, ranked according to "Final Points". Don't get caught with who won, or should have won. The point is that this system works very well.

Edit: Sorry, table didn't paste well.

I'd suggest using the geometric mean of the "relative" values in each column rather than the sum, as the geomean should help to even out the differences in weighting between the columns.  Otherwise total points will always have the largest deltas between lowest and highest relative values, giving the bigger teams an extra advantage.
 

texinga


Mornin' Fellas.  I think we also need to have some sort of method/plan to reach agreement on these ideas and give Chris something to take back to the Captains Forum (if that is where we are headed with these latest ideas).  I know you are still working through the ideas and I'm not here to rush that, just think we also have to arrive at some decisions soon too.  May 5th is approaching fast...unless we are working on this stuff for next years CC.

Exactly so, if I could get one of the admins to run a couple polls? The first one is whether or not people would like the idea of the CC being pushed to colder months? This would really help us hammer out a new system, plus like some have mentioned it will allow us to fold at higher rates during colder weather. 
Second poll is: Does everyone wanna keep the Chimp names or do the want to retain their own usernames? These are two questions that definitely need to get answered now.

Here's another question. Punchy, troy you guys are even better at running numbers than I am. Im working on a system that breaks the contest into categories or divisions. Something along the lines of hardware or # of clients or whatever can work for it. I was wondering if you guys could give some input on this I think that the current scheme of trying to come up with one formula that works for everyone is ridiculous. The handicap has to be severe enough to give small teams an advantage, but if the prediction is off slightly the handicap works too strongly in their favor like last year. Also if any teams merge, like last year, it throws it off. Simply put, the system cant handle any changes that are obviously going to show up. Any change in the number of folders or teams and the formula has to be re-written? You know people have been doing other competitions out there for more than 10 years and dont have this kind of nightmare to deal with. 
 
Note: This is going to be slightly different from Gryphon's idea. It involves more categories and a different way to split the categories, ie # of clients used.