that_dude_cam_ps

Voting system for plat/100% time and difficulty (instead of guide writer estimates)

Voting system for time to plat/100% and game difficulty   145 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you rather have a voting system for time to plat/100% and difficulty per game as described in my topic post or stick with the guide writer's personal estimate?

    • voting system!!! (science, yay)
      83
    • guide writer estimate (biased opinions, booooo)
      31
    • who cares
      28

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

65 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I think you're overthinking this just a lil bit 😂

Edited by shxrpay
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

LOL that a voting system is science "voting system!!! (science, yay)" and not just collected voter bias.

 

Yeah no kidding lol. It wouldn't eliminate the "bias" of guides at all. 

 

If you want to know difficulty, generally, the rarity can paint a good picture. However, that's not even always accurate either. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it the way it is now and the guides I used so far were very accurate with the time and difficulty for the platinum trophies. I often compare it with other guides like PowerPyx and playstationtrophies and I think it fits very well. I wouldn’t change it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it the way it is. I usually trust the guide writers, because they know what they're talking about.

It s*cks though if the guide writers have to adjust the difficulty because the guide team says so e.g. Titanfall 2.

 

A voting system is just unecessary I think. It never really worked out on the .org forum for example. Almost every game has the most votes on 3,4 and 5. Then there's the person who instantly gives it a 10, because he can't be bothered with actually playing the game.

And last but not least there's the elitist who gives the game a 2 no matter the difficulty, because to him everything is so easy and everybody needs to know how easy the game was to him. 

 

If you need to know the difficulty of a trophy list and don't trust the guide writer's estimated difficulty, browse through the forum, watch a video or just read through other sites. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playstationtrophies.org already has the votings implemented, and even then it's very often not reflecting on the game's actual difficulty. I saw people rate GTA V 10/10 just because it has multiplayer grind, and it's a long plat. Or giving 1/10 to a game like Shadow of the Colossus remake, simply because it's way easier than the original PS2 version with trophies. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Only letting players who actually finished a game vote reminds me of this:

 

bullet-holes.png

It shows all bullet holes recorded on airplanes that came back to an hangar, and the engineer had to decide which part to strengthen.

 

 

Edited by JoniP
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PooPooBlast said:

Not sure why everyone is shooting down the idea. More work for mods?? I personally would find that useful if the calculations are done correctly and in a standardized non-haphazard way. 

*If* the calculations are done in a standardised way then yeah, it could maybe be a benefit. But the very nature of an opt-in poll on the internet means it’s never going to provide a standardised sample

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of difficulty, you can't argue, if the game is hard, then it's hard, you cannot change that. for some it can be much easier if they got the skills required and/or with a little bit of luck, and for others it can be a lot harder.

 

Estimate time for plat/100% is doubtable, but I'm sure the one who make the guide is aware of that, and he's simply putting in the average time it will take to complete the game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 minutes ago, mataningo said:

In terms of difficulty, you can't argue, if the game is hard, then it's hard, you cannot change that. for some it can be much easier if they got the skills required and/or with a little bit of luck, and for others it can be a lot harder.

 

Estimate time for plat/100% is doubtable, but I'm sure the one who make the guide is aware of that, and he's simply putting in the average time it will take to complete the game.

 

Some guides especially those that were made many years ago are grossly in-accurate, for instance I've been playing Bayonetta recently and the guide states 40 hours which even for an average player would be excessive. I'm not the only person to comment about that either, it's no fault of the writers but it's not something you can accurately portray. 

Edited by LancashireLad87
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

37 minutes ago, BGriff1986 said:

*If* the calculations are done in a standardised way then yeah, it could maybe be a benefit. But the very nature of an opt-in poll on the internet means it’s never going to provide a standardised sample

That's a valid criticism but wouldn't you say that it's still better to get an aggregate score as opposed to having the guide writer propose his playtime alone? And I did mention earlier that it's definitely not perfect but it's one step closer to it being standardized than having 1 person decide the estimated playtime

 

And having a playtime system wouldn't mean that we'd get rid of the author's estimate. We can have both at the same time for those who find it useful.

Edited by PooPooBlast
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LancashireLad87 said:

 

Some guides especially those that were made many years ago are grossly in-accurate, for instance I've been playing Bayonetta recently and the guide states 40 hours which even for an average player would be excessive. I'm not the only person to comment about that either, it's no fault of the writers but it's not something you can accurately portray. 

I totally agree, it happens a lot with some guides. In that case, maybe in the time he played it, the game was more challenging. in today's world, games can change drastically with a simple fix.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rarity percentages and fastest completion times are already displayed. If that's not good enough, you'll never truly be satisfied.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be better to take an average of all the platinum achievers who can track their platinum time and find the average from there. As Bayonetta in this example tracks your playtime via the save data. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PooPooBlast said:

And I did mention earlier that it's definitely not perfect but it's one step closer to it being standardized than having 1 person decide the estimated playtime

 

Except the guide writers accept feedback from both commenters and the guide team, it's happened numerous times on the guides here.

 

I don't think this actually solves anything from an accuracy and I frankly I don't think this is any worse, but it's not any better than the guide writer determining the time, except this requires more work to implement and scores would probably change over time so anything written referencing them would be outdated as soon as they change.

 

Play times would only be accurate if the systems properly tracked exact play time and allowed a user to see that. And difficulty accuracy will never be solved because difficulty can't be boiled down to a number, implying it is quantifiable, because all the inputs and contributing factors can't be quantified either. Nothing gets this closer to accurate because accuracy is a technical description and nothing about this is being addressed technically.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea, but something that would need to be figured out is what to do with games that have a wide range of answers depending on how you play the game. For example a puzzle game that is 8/10 difficulty, but only 1/10 with a guide. Or a game like Jak II which is 20 hours legit, but 1 hour with an exploit. Taking a weighted average of these just gives you a meaningless number. At least if the guide writer chooses the values, they can make sure it's appropriate for the method used in their guide.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

*snip*

I agree about the difficulty aspect but I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the playtime only as I know difficulty ratings would just never work. 

 

Regarding playtime, having a single number will change of course but that's why having something like a range would be better.

 

Not to mention I don't see why having an estimated playtime that's a bit dynamic is a bad thing. With enough votes, that number will reach a plateau or a value that's not likely to wildly change once a large sample size have casted their votes. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I voted "who cares."

 

In reality, maybe both are best. 

 

Honesty though, who cares?

 

If you (or someone) care that much to the point that you want a new system needs to be put in place, I'd suggest using the existing system, but do a little bit more research yourself. Generally, know your own strengths/weaknesses, and check trophies with lower percentages to if it looks like it'll be hard, and look through forums to see if there's tricks etc. As far as a good meter on the real length of time, I find that when looking at the 100% lists, the 4th - 5th page of fastest achievers is generally a good indicator of how long it will take if you play for "the majority of the day" every day until it's done, since the first page is usually planned out, or really good speedrunners, etc.

 

Although, so PSNP stays "competitive" with general alternatives, maybe it should just be put in.

 

Edited by B1rvine
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a good feature.

 

The current way I estimate 100% completion time is by going to the 100% list for a game I'm interested in.  Then, I go to the middle page to view a range of 50 players' time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys, sly won't add it.

 

anyways, I think we should have both. a guide can show several time savers that would greatly reduce the time it takes to platinum. there could also be a collective vote for people that have the platinum, not just have the game. but the time on the guide is better.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pleasant reading posts like this, it reminds me im not the only one who is ocd about my life of gaming, ive voted in favor because why not, my vote can only help you in your quest so you have it, but personally i dont care too much about this particular thing because ive learned to not take guides so literal on time to plat etc, i swear these guys either make up random digits so it looks like theyre amazing doing it all 20h quicker than everybody else lol, or read off in game clocks which are commonly inaccurate and dont ever inc loading times etc so i usually grab all the info i need on these stats by scanning a few forum posts or scanning multiple gudes to gather more of a collective estimate which ive found slighty more reliable, but mainly because difficulty or time just doesnt ever deter me from playing what i want, if i want a plat il get it, i know im skilled enough for most games so i just crack on at a steady pace n do me, im not saying this wouldnt be a welcome implementation though, who doesnt want more accurate reading eh, however, ive put up a poll before and im under the impression the site operators are either 'way too busy' with a massive backlog of site improvements, or simply dont care enough about implementing most of them, ive heard theres countless user voted features sat collecting dust and a lot of them fairly quick and relatively easy to implement, but years later still we wait. 

I wanted something specific like you, but quickly realised i was over hopeful, then settled for a simple alternative, all i want is a drag and drop feature on my trophy list (the same thing already implemented in the trophy cabinet) so i can place my games in the right order alphabetically... 

One missed decimal here, one roman numerical there and everything is out of order, i even spent a couple hours renaming everything on my list correctly and sent it to sly, literary a 10 minute job to correct the missed dots etc but i was pawned off and told to 'create a poll', which i did, n those who voted, voted in favor of what i initially wanted, yet im still waiting for confirmation of the much simpler alternative of the drag n drop added to our lists, i just made my own list in my desired order ftw, good luck though i hope you get what you want, anything like this only improves psnp, the same as what i want, im baffled why half these requests werent already designed on creation of psnp, on the other side tho, there is a lot here and its still a good site so thumbs up to them, just sour i dont have what i wanted which is the case for most i guess hehe

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you've done here you clever goose.

 

Luckily though, I voted for votes.

 

Imagine voting for no voting. Yikes.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.