Would it be possible to please make credit payments better reflect the run-time of the WU? I see a variation of run-times of 600% and more on the same hardware, yet all pay the same amount

Some tasks run considerably longer than others. Are you able to give us any task examples? When we get towards the end of a range tasks get longer, 3 days ago we started a new range so tasks should be shorter for a wee while. I will agree I have seen tasks run for almost an hour on my 2070 in recent times. I don't have any tasks give you an example. They have been removed from my list

I understand that the algorithms used will mean that some WU take longer to run than others; I have no problem with that. My point is that the credits awarded should be proportional to the time taken. In your own example, an hour on a 2070 pays the same as 2 minutes on the same card if you happen to be lucky enough to download at the correct time.

I certainly understand where you are coming from. I take what I get & help with science. Looks like you have got some impressive processing power simply looking at your RAC

As you have pointed out, I also help with the science. A lot.

Whether you approve of competitive crunching or not, you will surely agree that it brings a lot of power to progress your project. If you paid credits pro-rata to run-time, all competitive crunchers would simply crunch whatever they got.

Yes I do agree with the more credit you get the more progress a project makes. Sometimes this only brings people for the credits and not for the science.

You seem to miss my point

You seem to miss my point

I believe what you are saying is that you would like credits to change with the amount of processing time? As an example is shorter task would receive less credit than a longer running one

Sometimes this only brings people for the credits and not for the science.

What difference does it make? As long as the science is getting done.

On the flip side is that people won't come for the science if the credits are too low based on amount of resources one has to use to get those credit.

Also, science...really? This project is looking for numbers, not cures or drugs or trying to map out diseases/virus or anything like that...just numbers.

In that case I obviously miss what your point is. My view is I cannot see the credits for this project increasing.

In that case I obviously miss what your point is.

The point is: It is frustrating if I find a WU that is running the hole day and gives only the same credits like a WU that is running just an hour.
Examples:
https://sech.me/boinc/Amicable/result.php?resultid=40101886
https://sech.me/boinc/Amicable/result.php?resultid=40104651

I dont have a problem with a WU running twice the normal time. But 10x run time is not acceptable for the same credits.

If you dont want to INcrease the credits for such long running WUs, than you might DEcrease the credits for the short runners.

Otherwise people will abort all the long running WUs (at least I do it). Is that better for the science?
People who run their PC only 2-3h per day would have a problem with 22 hour WUs.