Proposition of adjusted trophy calculation

[That1Estonian]

4 hours ago, Dr_Mayus said:

So, just checking. My examples are stacks with different trophy lists. So those would be fine?

But wouldnt someone like hakoom still be on top due to the sheer number of trophies? Even if a bunch are common it is more than most people's ultra rares so they would still be on top.

Point is not to screw over Hakoom. The man is a grinder and more power to him. But we all know that there's bronze trophies out there that are worth more than many of these plats combined. Would be nice if it reflected somehow. Also, forcing people to play trash games if they wanna compete in the leaderboards is kinda stupid. I get the "name of the game" argument, but cmon.

 

And I truly think that adding a heavy multiplier based on rarity would be best and most painless way to do it. Because if they started removing trophies that people earned in legit way, that would be bad and make alot of people mad. I would be do. Also, since rarity is a changing thing, the update method needs to almost always recount the point values, so it has to be fast and robust.

[DrBloodmoney]

I used to firmly endorse the idea of a rarity leaderboard here - I'm sure if I trawled through my posts from years ago, I could find myself espousing the virtues of one, and decrying the monoculture of the single, basic board - but my personal view on this has changed over the years.

 

On the one hand, I love stats. 

More Stats > Less Stats.

I'm never averse to seeing the data from our profiles displayed and used in different ways - it's always at least fun, if not interesting (or interesting if not fun!)

 

 

 

On the other hand, I'm just not sure the addition of additional leaderboards really feels... meaningful?

 

 

On PSNTL, there are 4 boards - The main one, Adjusted, Rarity, and Completionist.

 

Personally, I am higher-placed on all three 'additional' boards than I am on the main one.

For the completionist board - which is probably closest to how I identify within the niche's of the Trophy Hunting community - I am significantly higher placed.

 

I should be exactly the person to whole-heartedly endorse the kind of additional leaderboard being proposed here...

 

 

But...

 

 

as little as I care about my placement on any of the boards anymore, I must admit, I find it virtually impossible to care about my position on those niche ones.

 

They are just too... ...something.

Tailored...?

I don't know... something like that.

 

It just feel a bit like when you hear about people getting in the Guinness book of World Records, only to find they did it by creating a record for something that wasn't in there before, you know?

 

"I'm the No.1 in the world!"

"wow, really? Awesome! In what?"

"Scratching hub caps with a bit of old bone while drinking custard!"

?

 

Or when you hear "It's the tallest building in the Southern Hemisphere!"

The only thing anyone thinks is....

"... yeah, okay, but it's like 90th tallest in the world though... right?

 

 

 

I guess what I'm saying is that, while I love seeing the data used in interesting ways, when it comes to the actual leaderboard, I've come around to preferring the idea of just the single unified one, even as I watch my placement slowly dribble away in the face of the onslaught of easier games with 'stacks' in the hundreds, that I'm just not willing to engage with.

 

In the end, for people who don't want a profile smelling of Mayo, placement on the leaderboard might as well be referred to as 'The Long Defeat",

but... really, what does a high placement on a board actually mean, if every time you say it, it needs an asterisk with a bunch of footnotes to explain it?

Edited February 17, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[That1Estonian]

Yea no separate leaderboards. I still wanna sit in the cool kids table.

[AusLeviathan]

19 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

It just feel a bit like when you hear about people getting in the Guinness book of World Records, only to find they did it by creating a record for something that wasn't in there before, you know?

 

That's exactly what the PSNP leaderboard is though, Hakoom is number 1 in the world according to a baffling set of criteria that would be laughed out of any true competitive conversation.

 

Rarity isn't the answer, there are some massive issues with rarity because it doesn't show how difficult a trophy is to get, it shows how unlikely someone is to want to truly complete a game, as a result it rewards terrible games just as much as the current system does.

 

What would help is changing the name of the leaderboard to "Most Trophies" as that's all it is and running actual competitions of having to complete games in a certain time period, e.g. you submit a list of games you're going to complete for the competition, they're given a handicap to determine a score for each one and you get scored based on how many of those games you've completed when the competition is over.

 

Run something like that once a month, maybe do theme months where certain genre's are worth more to encourage people to diversify what they play and I suspect you'll have a much more engaged community that's actually invested in who's doing well, compared to the current state where someone in the top ten can stop playing and everyone responds with "who was that".

 

It would certainly be a much better use of the CRT's time and resources then their current use in spending time removing people from a meaningless leaderboard, at least this way there would be actual meaning when they disqualify a person.

Edited February 17, 2021 by AusLeviathan

[DrBloodmoney]

@AusLeviathan - It's not like I don't understand what you mean, and I can certainly see you're point of view, but I can't say I fully agree.

 

7 minutes ago, AusLeviathan said:

 

That's exactly what the PSNP leaderboard is though, Hakoom is number 1 in the world according to a baffling set of criteria that would be laughed out of any true competitive conversation.

 

It's not really baffling - Sony created their trophy system, and so the 'true' leaderboard is theirs.  

PSNP's leaderboard is just following the 'rules' they have, but with the removal of 'proven' cheaters.

It might not be a great system in some people's estimation, but keeping it the way it is is really the simplest solution, as any modification of the rules to deviate from Sony's rules just creates a niche board.

At the moment, PSNP doesn't need to field a bunch of questions as to how their formulae are wrong, or unfair, or how they should change it (aside from suggestion threads like this one,) as the rules are just Sony's.

As soon as they start modifying the boards and applying formulae, you can bet your bottom dollar that 'Dispute' threads over what games should count / not count / be worth more / less etc. would very quickly overtake the already enormous avalanche of 'Cheater' dispute threads.

 

 

10 minutes ago, AusLeviathan said:

 

Rarity isn't the answer, there are some massive issues with rarity because it doesn't show how difficult a trophy is to get, it shows how unlikely someone is to want to truly complete a game, as a result it rewards terrible games just as much as the current system does.

 

I agree with you on that one - don't get me started on Rarity! ?

 

I think the fetishisation of Ultra-rare trophies in some parts of the community is absurd.

IMO, purposefully going after rarity, regardless of the quality of the game is preposterous, and completely counter to having fun.

 

Sure, there are games where the trophies are ultra-rare because the game is fun, but very tough. (I'm playing one now!)

But more often than not, Ultra-rare trophies exist because either the game is not worth people's time, the game is borderline (or actually) broken, or there is some crazy, sadistic grind or multiplayer requirement that the only people willing to achieve them are Ultra-Rare rare-fetishist masochists, forgoing having fun with their hobby to have terrible, frustrating time instead.

 

You know what games have no Ultra-rares?

Games so good that everyone wants to complete them!

 

 

15 minutes ago, AusLeviathan said:

 

What would help is changing the name of the leaderboard to "Most Trophies" as that's all it is and running actual competitions of having to complete games in a certain time period, e.g. you submit a list of games you're going to complete for the competition, they're given a handicap to determine a score for each one and you get scored based on how many of those games you've completed when the competition is over.

 

Run something like that once a month, maybe do theme months where certain genre's are worth more to encourage people to diversify what they play and I suspect you'll have a much more engaged community that's actually invested in who's doing well, compared to the current state where someone in the top ten can stop playing and everyone responds with "who was that".

 

 

Those kind of competitions happen on here anyways, and the folks who run them and compete care way more about those competitions than their placement on the leaderboard - and more power to them

 

 

16 minutes ago, AusLeviathan said:

 

It would certainly be a much better use of the CRT's time and resources then their current use in spending time removing people from a meaningless leaderboard, at least this way there would be actual meaning when they disqualify a person.

 

Most of those competitions are self-policing anyways, as far as I can tell.

(I don't really engage with the competitions here, as I like to play whatever I feel like on any particular day without feeling beholden to a competition, but I see threads for them plenty, and folks seem to have a lot of fun)

 

[AusLeviathan]

36 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

It's not really baffling - Sony created their trophy system, and so the 'true' leaderboard is theirs.

 

That's the source of the issue. Sony didn't create a leaderboard system, they created a level system. It's designed solely to show how many games you've played/completed across all time and that's it. It doesn't roll over and the points continue forever which makes it useless for use in a leaderboard. Imaging being the champion because you had a few years head start on getting points compared to your closest competitors, that's basically what this leaderboard is, a competition to see whose got deep enough pockets to carry them through the years of continually playing games.

 

36 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Those kind of competitions happen on here anyways, and the folks who run them and compete care way more about those competitions than their placement on the leaderboard - and more power to them

 

Competitions like that actually held by this site (not just hidden away in a forum thread that most people aren't going to notice) would bring something interesting to trophy hunting and get it away from the "buy every game and complete it as fast as possible" mentality of the current leaderboard.

[DrBloodmoney]

3 minutes ago, AusLeviathan said:

 

Competitions like that actually held by this site (not just hidden away in a forum thread that most people aren't going to notice) would bring something interesting to trophy hunting and get it away from the "buy every game and complete it as fast as possible" mentality of the current leaderboard.

 

Can't disagree on that one - I think site-wide competitions could be good fun, for sure

[That1Estonian]

Damn yeah, I didn't actually look at the whole rarity thing from that angle ?

[Bumperklever]

If we are talking bout EZ peasy stack plats, proposal against the cons:

 

~ plats with > 75% rarity  with stacks that all have > 75% rarity count as 1 list. So UR time consuming ones are safe. 

 

~ 2 stack with both but different list (fe Rayman legends). The one with the most points counts. 

 

~ lists with combined games (danganronpa 1&2, zero time) do not count for this stacking rule other then when the collection got identical stacks themselves. 

 

There are many ways to implement a leaderboard of some sorts with the aim of stacking at sight. 

 

But before implying random leaderboard rules to make the system more prestigious. let's first start with a rarity leaderboard on the frontpage with the most fitting formula that counts all lists. (like all the other trophy tracking sites these days). 

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by Bumperklever

[SSenpai_I]

Its a nice idea and i would like to see it implemented but their is a gaping hole in this proposition. How would you account for the rise and fall of the trophy rarity. If for example a trophy with a 5% rarity were to rise to 10%. How would people who have already earned that trophy be compensated. Or perhaps the amount of points you get for the trophy remain the same?

[diskdocx]

8 hours ago, janzor88 said:

 

What has this system brought us the last years?

1) Game quantity is more important than game quality right now.

This site is tracking 4,8 million profiles which clearly is enough incentivize for companies to keep spitting out their shovelware nonstop.
Game quality is secondary when developing these games, as they sell nomatter what - as long as you get multiple stacks and short completion time.
A big amount of people would stop buying platinum shovelware if it only counted once, hence forcing developers to improve their product beyond "free platinums".

 

2) People would have better experiences when playing games.

Most people have huge backlogs, and finish multiple versions of the games just to advance on the leaderboards.
If they have the old original game, or a remastered PS4/PS5 version, which version do you think people would play? The newest and best version of the game most likely, instead of being stuck with bad ports or outdated graphics/controls/camera.

 

3) Inflated leaderboards would be corrected.

The leaderboards have been utterfly useless since platinum shovelware started spreading.
Right now money determines how many stacks you can get, but does it need to be this way if only one game counts? PS3/PS4/PS5/Vita + different regions makes this a complete mess. The more systems you own, the more points you will get for autopopping games you havent even played.

 

I really can't see your "cons", as they just seem emotional since you invested some time in trophies which you have affection for.
I haven't seen logical arguments against this, only emotional so far.

Logical arguments;

1) You won't change purchasing patterns. People won't stop buying, they'll only buy it once since there's only one trophy list, but it won't stop purchases. It might financially impact the small devs that make money by selling the game 3 times in different regions, but there are lots of things that need more attention and improvement in the gaming industry than Rat selling 2000 copies of whatever the weekly quick plat is.

 

2) I don't think it's your place to determine what experiences others should or should not have. You phrase this as altruism, but it isn't. It's elitism. You want people to play games that you think are better quality. That's just not your decision to make. Play what you want and don't worry about others.

 

You are also completely overlooking the nostalgia factor of replaying a game. People will only play the newest and best? That assumes they didn't play the game originally 10 yrs ago when it came out. Great perspective for someone new to gaming, but not someone that played the games on PS3 originally.

 

There is an entire section of this site dedicated to game series. Some people enjoy completing a series, and that includes all games from that series. This includes re-releases and remasters, releases from different regions. You are falsely equating stacks with shovelware, and that just isn't the case.

 

In fact, your main argument from point 1 is going to directly contradict point 2 - if remasters/re-releases only sell because of the new trophy list (which probably does generate some sales, but likely not many) - but if this had the desired effect, you WON'T see these new and improved versions. If sales of remasters tank because everyone adopts your leaderboard and gaming rule, then we won't see these improved versions. You can't really argue both sides of the equation here.

 

3) Can you elaborate on all these autopops you get without playing? I think you are grossly over-inflating the numbers here. The shovelware 1 hour plats don't autopop. You have to play them fully each time. There were a handful of PS3/PS4/Vita autopops back when the PS4 came out (Sound Shapes, Sly Cooper, Motorstorm, Cel Damage immediately come to mind, but I can't think of many more), and we are now seeing a few with PS4/5 lists. But I don't think there are more than about 20 autopops total over 12 years of trophies. Hardly has any impact on the leaderboard. And there is a massive misconception between autopopping and not playing - sure, if you pop in Spiderman PS5 you can autopop that plat, but you still need to have spent the 40 hours or so on the PS4 version fully completing that BEFORE you can get the autopop.

 

Really, this just isn't as big a deal as you are making it out to be. The top of the leaderboard is going to be dominated by those with the most time available. If you take away the quick plats, they will still be on top of the leaderboard. The spread may narrow a bit, but there seems to be this misconception that suddenly casual gamers with 10 plats are going to be top of the boards if you ban Rat games.

 

That just isn't reality

[DaivRules]

6 minutes ago, OmerSenpai said:

Its a nice idea and i would like to see it implemented but their is a gaping hole in this proposition. How would you account for the rise and fall of the trophy rarity. If for example a trophy with a 5% rarity were to rise to 10%. How would people who have already earned that trophy be compensated. Or perhaps the amount of points you get for the trophy remain the same?

Games only tend to have a rarity swing that large shortly after release and then a .1 percent change would be considered fairly large for the rest of its history. 

[Bumperklever]

9 minutes ago, OmerSenpai said:

Its a nice idea and i would like to see it implemented but their is a gaping hole in this proposition. How would you account for the rise and fall of the trophy rarity. If for example a trophy with a 5% rarity were to rise to 10%. How would people who have already earned that trophy be compensated. Or perhaps the amount of points you get for the trophy remain the same?

 

Jumps like that doesn't happen often, but I see your the point that you want to make.

 

The proposition of OP is rough. since the difference between a 0.99% and a 1% trophy would be 40 points X sort which is insane. 

 

But people in the past made some formula's in the main thread (see the first page). Here the points aren't stairs, but a nice curve or a stairsystem with smaller ranges. 

 

The concept and elaboration for a basic rarity leaderboard are already there.

There is even already a hidden rarity leaderboard. 

[Dr_Mayus]

3 hours ago, DaivRules said:

Games only tend to have a rarity swing that large shortly after release and then a .1 percent change would be considered fairly large for the rest of its history. 

Tell that to most of my ultra rare plats ? Eyepet, start the party, okabu and a few others just became ultra rare all of a sudden. Dont know if a bunch of cheaters got removed but they all dropped several percentage points over night.

[BlitzkriegHottie]

17 hours ago, janzor88 said:

One of the solutions could be to only give one full set of points, per game.

For example: you like to play Ratalaika games? Fine, but you only get points for the first game and not more points for the PS3/PS4/Vita/EU/NA stacks.

That's an awful solution. Not only ezpz hunters stack platinums, I have several stacks including Catherine, a game that isn't easy by any means, and that I intend to triple stack for my 300th platinum later on. Your proposition would make my Catherine (PS4) and my future Catherine (EU) stacks worthless. 

17 hours ago, janzor88 said:

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by BlitzkriegHottie