JimF wrote:On the assumption that there are only so many points to go around (and if you just issue more to everyone it deflates their value, just like money), then which group would you want to provide the incentive to? I don't think you need to be a PhD at Stanford to figure out the right answer. Maybe you are right that just the higher output of the newer cards is enough of an incentive by itself, but the scientific value of the contribution can only be decided by PG.
I hope they get the right balance too, but just because a group of folders wants to get more points does not indicate to me that they have done it wrong.
I understand your point, and thank you for bring it up.
My point isn't about a "group of folders" wanting to get special treatment.
This is about how PG is defining
simplification and
fairness.
On the one hand, there are contributors who have been doing F@H for 10+ years.
Many of them have a legitimate complaint (that really should be addressed) that their continued contributions are being under-valued.
On the other hand, if a contributor is expecting to receive a "handicap" point system (like golf or league bowling, etc) then they need to think again.
Seriously old equipment (like a Pentium processor) cannot hold a candle to a modern Core i7.
Similarly, older GPUs are being seriously out-classed by brand-new GPUs.
But should a 3 year old GPU be penalized & obviated just because it can't keep up?
And I am not suggesting that we give any extra points as an artificial handicap.
Just as we are forced to upgrade OS versions every few years (and sometimes those upgrades come with 'minimum' hardware requirements), the older hardware - over time - becomes a more cost-effective paperweight than a computing device. That's just the way technology goes.
My point is about recognizing and rewarding long-term dedication & persistence as
part of the whole point-system
unification.
Let me give a practical example...
On my team, I am currently the #1 point-holder. But 6 months ago, I was quite farther down on that list (I have only been folding since Oct-2009).
In just 6 months (or less), using 3 GTX-560Ti's, a GTX-690, 2 AMD 8-cores, and 1 AMD 4-core, I was able to rocket to the top of the heap.
Now, there are a few of my team-mates that have completed MANY more WUs over the past 10 years than I have - and have less total points!
Let's say one of those 'veteran' folders acquires a new GTX-690.
I would be perfectly happy with giving them a few extra points for the
same WU that I would complete on my GTX-690.
Why? Because they've been at it a lot longer than me.
But, over time (5 to 8 years?) - based on MY own dedication & persistence, I would expect that 'extra-points' gap to narrow with respect to the more senior folders (given the same hardware).
A nominal dividend should be paid for consistency & dedication (or seniority/tenure if you will).
There should - of course - be some limitations - that's why I suggested 5 to 8 years.
How this dividend would be computed is a separate discussion.
My real point is around deciding whether or not a
dedication-dividend should be factored in.