Premium Member
 PSN Profile
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,603 Excellent

About dmland12

  • Rank
    Inverted Y-Axis Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

8,235 profile views
  1. The short answer is that it's broken as it currently stands. The long answer is that the formula used is this: POINTS = 1+(500-1)*((50/RARITY)^0.2718281828459-1)/(5000^0.2718281828459-1) I made a google spreadsheet of it back when it was first implemented if you want to play around with the numbers and see what different rarities are supposed to be worth: But, that's not all, because it's clear from watching that leaderboard over a few years that it just isn't counting trophies from some games at all. Additionally, it seems impossible to ever lose points, so if you do manage to get points added to the leaderboard, but the trophies lose value (or you even hide your entire profile), you'll at worst stay with the total points that you have. (The current #1 has hidden their entire profile for example.) Some combination of this is likely why you're seeing the difference you're seeing.
  2. Yeah, for the campaign and death mode. The DLC was pretty dumb and easy as far as trophies go. Death mode was the part people complained about. It was probably patient zero for autopopping multiple lists, but it's not a super easy game. For that, it's stuff like Aabs, Mayo, and Slyde/1000 Top Rated. Although those games didn't go real hard for the multiple lists. So, what we're seeing is kind of a combination of the two (lots of multiple stacks & super easy).
  3. I'm sure many here are already aware, but for those that aren't... PSNP doesn't automatically pick up these changes. If you see a difference like this between the list on here and the one on your console you should ask for a rescan of the list in this thread: You can also see from the size of that thread that there's been many many MANY changes over the years, although only some of the changes are the sort that OP is asking about.
  4. Hitman 2 looks interesting. I enjoyed the first one, so I wouldn't mind that at all. I too miss when we got 6 games across PS3/Vita/PS4 with some crossbuy, but I'm over it.
  5. Nah, my milestones are mostly just whatever and I like it that way. Kind of a series of random snapshots over time. I do remember choosing the one for my 1000th trophy, but only from the game I was playing at the time and the trophies I could get next. So, it wasn't some grand plan. There's probably been some other minor adjustments like that that I've forgotten about.
  6. Yes! This is also what I immediately thought of. Both of those trophies in Fenix Furia are glitched for me too. I've tried some random, probably pointless ideas, but no luck. I see someone did recently manage to get the 5000 one to pop, but it looks like the 10000 one glitched on them. Maybe I'll try again sometime.
  7. I've also wondered this in passing. As far as I know there's no way to see the whole list. The difference is presumably caused by the owners that haven't earned any trophies not showing up on the leaderboard list. So, we'll just have to assume the site is doing the math right I'm afraid.
  8. OK, well. Think about this. You ever notice that you can't tell much of a difference between the typical 50% trophy and the typical 45% trophy. They basically seem very similar. Now think about the typical 10% trophy, the typical 5% trophy and the typical 0.5% trophy. There's a more noticeable difference there isn't there? Let's look at the calculations and see if we can find it! 50% = 50/100 = 1:2 45% = 45/100 = 1:2.22 10% = 10/100 = 1:10 5% = 5/100 = 1:20 0.5% = 1/200 = 1:200 There it is. Even though we moved 5% from 50% to 45% the ratio is still very similar. Meanwhile, when we moved the same 5% from 10% to 5% it doubled (or halved). So, what's going on? Well, as I explained in the thread I linked, what we're really measuring here when we do this is how many people don't have the trophy for every person that does. Interestingly, it also matches up better with most of our subjective experiences regarding rarity. 45% or 50% well, whatever it doesn't feel like there's any difference. 10% to 5% that's noticable and the lower you go the easier it is to feel the difference on average (I know there are exceptions etc). They are just different ways of looking at rarity and most people (who are interested in rarity) have a tendency to think about it this way even if they can't exactly explain it like this. That's why almost all of the suggestions ramp up faster than it seems to you like they should.
  9. I mean just that the Any% leaderboard isn't necessarily considered to be "better" than the 100% leaderboard or glitchless leaderboard or whatever. There are people that are trying to get better at each, but there is not this general idea that one of them should be the correct leaderboard or that they are even trying to figure out what the correct way to play is. They are just different ways of doing it. Oh, it's because rarity could be looked at in different ways. You could look at it as a percentage number from 0-100%. But, you could also see it as a ratio. 50% could also be represented as 1 in 2 or 1:2. 10% is also 1:10 and 1% is 1:100. It's this denominator that goes up rapidly and that's why I once just suggested a rarity calculation of 1/x-1. But, people seem to think this is too severe, so almost every suggestion you see flattens this curve somewhat so that it's actually not as severe as this (1/x-1) would be.
  10. No, I just want more variety in leaderboards. Right now we just have a leaderboard ranked by trophy xp and that's it. If we had more than that, of course some people would prefer one over others etc, but I don't think there will be a consensus. I really don't understand the whole degrading part or whatever. Think about speedrun leaderboards. For popular games there's one for any%, and then some others also depending on interest. There will be people more interested in one or another but that's it. They're not trying to figure out which one is the most important leaderboard ever or whatever nonsense.
  11. Well, the rarity leaderboard absolutely does discriminate. If we don't vary the value of some trophy or game at all then we're just stuck in the mud with the main leaderboard and that's it. There's nothing else possible. It's disheartening seeing you take that position. I think there's a lot of people that are hoping that you'll eventually get some access to improve the site directly if sly doesn't. But, it sounds like even that wouldn't help.
  12. Wow, so much negativity! Never would have guessed. 😄 You really think (nearly) everyone will get on the same page in order to manipulate times? Maybe if the main leaderboard was outright replaced with something like this they would just out of self-preservation. I guess I wasn't clear about this in my first post but, I really don't see that happening. That would be too radical for it to actually work. As long as the main leaderboard is still there too you know people will just pile it up as fast as they can. The only way to change people is to offer alternative incentives. Right now, you get rewarded for just piling up trophy xp as fast as you can with no other considerations. That's why people are doing what they're doing. I do think sooner or later there will be renewed interest in the site from sly. So, there's still value in figuring out what sort of changes we would like to see. I know I've felt like this too, but I try not to stay too pessimistic. What a sad sentiment. Leaderboards, if they're implemented well should give people various goals and incentives. But currently we've just got one leaderboard and the way forward on it is clear and unappealing to many right now. In other words, we could imagine a world where you can both focus on your own games and also get some satisfaction from the leaderboards. It's just really sad that we're at the point where people think the best advise is to just stop paying attention to a main feature of the site, since it's just so unsatisfying for so many.
  13. We all know the leaderboard isn't as well regarded as it used to be. People have come up with alternate ideas usually involving trophy rarity, then other people complain about using rarity as a measure and nothing ever seems to happen. So maybe it's time to start thinking about things differently. I suggest adding the following rule: Count trophy xp only from games that have a 50th place time (or the highest available if less than 50) on the fastest achievers list of more than x minutes. (x could be 30 minutes or some other short timeframe) The point is to just remove games from the calculation that can be completed too quickly, as well as games that are auto-popped. And count just those that take at least a little time to complete. The end effect would be to return the leaderboards closer to the way they were before (although not exactly of course because this would get stuff like Sound Shapes & Arcade Archives etc). The rule has nothing to do with rarity or any of those old arguments. There's still plenty of non-rare games to play that will count. So, let's hear the new arguments for why this is a horrible idea too. 😬
  14. That looks great. I agree with the idea of just replacing the gold/silver/bronze with the ribbons. Probably the cleanest way to do it without just making things too cluttered and I'm a lot more interested in the ribbons than the trophy types. I think it's important to make it optional like you suggest so as to not upset anyone too much. And I would make sure that it's optional from the perspective of the person that's choosing to check the box. So, for example if I check the box that enables ribbons then I just see any profile I look at with ribbons (and any other place it would make sense, like But, if someone didn't check the box, then they just see everything the way it is now. I think we might stand a better chance of getting this implemented if people who don't want it just don't have to deal with it, you know? Who would complain about an optional way of looking at profiles that they could just completely ignore if they wanted to? (I know, I know... some will still find a way.)
  15. I thought Far Harbor was great. I liked it better than the main game. The rest was at least decent and being able to craft your own ammo was very nice. Nuka-World was the most disappointing for me (and also has the most annoying trophy of the bunch, Eyes on the Prize), but I'm sure there are people who liked it.