DLC % logic?

[scemopagliaccioh]

Just now, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Oh, I see - so in that specific case, the "effort" you put in became less of a strain retroactively - got it ?

Ah, but you see, I omitted a part because I expected this answer.

Would you like to know why it’s less rare? Because there are no longer Mtxs linked to some trophies and a never ending  exp boost, which, you guessed it, makes it less of a strain.

It’s just that your example of a game coming to plus  making it rarer isn’t a rule, maybe the first two weeks as the game is new, but even then, the argument goes back to people putting the effort, and of course, same argument about  Atellier thingy, a dedicated core will pull more effort  than casuals passim by.

[DrBloodmoney]

 

2 minutes ago, Shikotei-kun said:

One example is the Fall Guys trophy Infallible.

With the recent update it's become a 10 minute effortless trophy, rather than an almost godlike luck/skill.

It's gone from 1-2% to almost 3.7% in a week!

 

Effort =/= rarity.

 

Exactly - good example. 

 

Discovery of a glitch (or a patch of an existing one) can change rarity massively. That isn't a reflection on the "effort" put in before or after the change.

 

 

Rarity - Objective and quantifiable.

 

"Effort" - Subjective and unquantifiable.

[scemopagliaccioh]

10 minutes ago, Shikotei-kun said:

One example is the Fall Guys trophy Infallible.

With the recent update it's become a 10 minute effortless trophy, rather than an almost godlike luck/skill.

It's gone from 1-2% to almost 3.7% in a week!

 

Effort =/= rarity.

At that point it just becomes an estimate of CURRENT effort required, ain’t nothing new, dbfz had a zeni glitch that  made the plat go from 0.90 to 3.00-ish I think? Because majority of the efforts for the plat were zeni related, and once an exploit was found  the rarity adjusted itself when people started flooding in for the trophy.

It sucks for the people that went legit like me, but effort  for a rare trophy not being static does not mean it isn’t there

[Arcesius]

26 minutes ago, Beyondthegrave07 said:

I wonder how a change on this scale would affect a rarity leaderboard... Would completionists dominate the boards or would it even itself out over time? Would people start buying DLC to try and compete? 

 

Guess it'd be interesting to see at least.

 

It depends how you would compute the rarity-points for the LB. 

 

I have checked a couple of DLCs for games like Nioh, The Surge 2, Bloodborne... There are almost no UR trophies in the DLC, even if you include all base-game owners. However, trophies that are already UR become even rarer, for example in games like Trials Fusion, Crypt of the NecroDancer or Warhammer: Vermintide 2. 

 

IF a rarity leaderboard would be implemented with - for example - the latest suggested formula on this page by MMDE, then people that completed games that have already UR DLC trophies would get a massive boost in terms of points, since that formula attributes a huge percentage of its maximal points to a very narrow part towards the end of the rarity scale.  

 

If computed otherwise, I don't think it would have that big of an impact, and I truly think that people are overestimating the changes that would come with having an accurate stat instead of a made-up one. 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Arcesius

[djb5f]

7 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

 

Exactly - good example. 

 

Discovery of a glitch (or a patch of an existing one) can change rarity massively. That isn't a reflection on the "effort" put in before or after the change.

 

 

Rarity - Objective and quantifiable.

 

"Effort" - Subjective and unquantifiable.

Based on this thread and the countless other ones like it, rarity is not that objective.  But that is only because we don’t have the data (DLC owners in this case).  I agree that rarity would be objective and quantifiable if we had good data.  Unfortunately, we don’t.

 

Question for you Dr. Bloodmoney.  If PlayStation did have data on DLC owners for each profile, would you use that in your calculation instead?  Or would you use the base game owners still?

 

 

[Arcesius]

Just now, djb5f said:

Based on this thread and the countless other ones like it, rarity is not that objective.  But that is only because we don’t have the data (DLC owners in this case).  I agree that rarity would be objective and quantifiable if we had good data.  Unfortunately, we don’t.

 

You are right, we don't. But how is using an arbitrary number that - so far - no one has been able to verify is even close to the number of actual DLC owners more accurate than using an actual measurable quantity, such as "people that have the list on their profiles and as such whose stats are affected by the DLC existing"?

[starcrunch061]

These are my two cents: if DLC rarity is computed off of base game owners, it will simply make rarity designations meaningless. Why bother listing UR anymore?
 

For example, Two Worlds 2 currently has 57,900 owners. Its SP DLC has 1497 people that have earned one trophy. Assuming that those people earned the same, easiest trophy, that would give a rarity of 2.58% for that trophy. 

 

Honestly, if all people want is the rarity itself for the trophy, there’s no reason to publish the percentage. Just list the total number of people who’ve obtained the trophy; basic arithmetic will tell you the percentage.
 

I guess people want to buy UR trophies in the same way they currently buy plats. The race to the bottom continues...

[DrBloodmoney]

Just now, djb5f said:

Question for you Dr. Bloodmoney.  If PlayStation did have data on DLC owners for each profile, would you use that in your calculation instead?  Or would you use the base game owners still?

 

Hmmm....

 

that actually did catch me for a moment there - good question!

 

 

I think, on balance, I would still err on the side of using Base Game owners - IF - all the rest of the site stayed the same.

 

The reason being - DLC is still factored into all other areas of the site as a part of the game (S-Rank / Completion Percentage etc.) 

 

I guess if the data were somehow available, I would say that I would prefer to use it only if it permeated the entire site - and that would be a MASSIVE overhaul.

Essentially, it would split every dlc pack out into it's own separate, individual list, with it's new Rank, completion stat and related rarity values - though it would likely still cause a bit of an issue for specific very-low number DLCs (by which I mean ones with only a couple of trophies) - as "ownership" would likely still be based on earning one trophy per dlc pack, so a DLC with a single trophy would still skew to 100% automatically - if I understand the system correctly.

 

Basically what I'm saying is - and have been saying all along - as long as the DLC is considered part of the game for most of the site, it should really be considered a part of it for ALL of the site.

[starcrunch061]

4 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

 

You are right, we don't. But how is using an arbitrary number that - so far - no one has been able to verify is even close to the number of actual DLC owners more accurate than using an actual measurable quantity, such as "people that have the list on their profiles and as such whose stats are affected by the DLC existing"?

The arbitrary number is shit. Everybody knows it. It was a compromise, issued because two sides couldn’t find a bit of common ground. And in that sense, the compromise was great; both sides were left dissatisfied, but the bickering was minimized.

[DrBloodmoney]

1 minute ago, starcrunch061 said:

The arbitrary number is shit. Everybody knows it. It was a compromise, issued because two sides couldn’t find a bit of common ground. And in that sense, the compromise was great; both sides were left dissatisfied, but the bickering was minimized.

 

Which was always nonsense anyways - given that the majority was always in favour of using the Base Game number - the others side was just louder to compensate for numbers.

 

If a bunch of Flat-Earther's are shouting all the time about the earth being a disc, and everyone else agrees it is a sphere,  you don't 'compromise' by teaching kids that the earth is a cube.

[Ich1994-1994]

5 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Which was always nonsense anyways - given that the majority was always in favour of using the Base Game number - the others side was just louder to compensate for numbers.

 

If a bunch of Flat-Earther's are shouting all the time about the earth being a disc, and everyone else agrees it is a sphere,  you don't 'compromise' by teaching kids that the earth is a cube.

thats a bad comparison. the shape of the earth is a sientific fact and the discussion on how the DLC should be done is completley opinion based

[starcrunch061]

9 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Which was always nonsense anyways - given that the majority was always in favour of using the Base Game number - the others side was just louder to compensate for numbers.

 

If a bunch of Flat-Earther's are shouting all the time about the earth being a disc, and everyone else agrees it is a sphere,  you don't 'compromise' by teaching kids that the earth is a cube.

No, but neither does democracy determine truth. For many years, a majority of humans believed that the earth was the center of the universe. That view didn’t change because the majoritarian view changed.

 

One Socrates dissatisfied is better than 1000 pigs satisfied. And before anyone takes umbrage at my (bastardized) Nietzsche quote, the point is this: just because one group participating in one thread might (MIGHT) hold a majority doesn’t make their view the standard one. If the majority of people on this site loved the new 5-minute plats from our religious developer, that doesn’t mean that the minority is wrong, and it certainly doesn’t mean that their view is somehow akin to science-free foolishness and the refusal to accept empirical data on our planet.

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by starcrunch061

[DrBloodmoney]

4 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

No, but neither does democracy determine truth. For many years, a majority of humans believed that the earth was the center of the universe. That view didn’t change because the majoritarian view changed.

 

One Socrates dissatisfied is better than 1000 pigs satisfied. And before anyone takes umbrage at my (bastardized) Nietzsche quote, the point is this: just because one group participating in one thread might (MIGHT) hold a majority doesn’t make their view the standard one. If the majority of people on this site loved the new 5-minute from our religious developer doesn’t mean that the minority is wrong, and it certainly doesn’t mean that their view is somehow akin to science deniers refusal to accept empirical data on our planet.

 

No - that's true, but on the other hand, the majority should determine- or at least shape - the methodology on a site that is service-based in nature. 

 

I'm not saying everything should bend to the opinion of a mass majority - but given that the only people this really affects are all on this site, I don't see the argument against the nature of the services it provides being determined by a simple show of hands 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[scemopagliaccioh]

1 minute ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

No - that's true, but on the other hand, the majority should determine- or at least shape - the methodology on a site that is service-based in nature. 

 

I'm not saying everything should bend to the opinion of a mass majority - but given that the only people this really affects are all on this site, I don't see the argument against the nature of the services it provides being determined by a simple show of hands 

 

Then how do you check the majority, let alone decide  that said majority agrees with your opinion? This is a thread with 5 pages and multiple posters, me included, alright, the forums have a large array of users who didn’t read or know this thread exists, said site also has many many more users  who don’t use the forums but said change would affect them. This is not a situation you can childishly categorise as one side enlightened and the other ignorant like the flat earth thing.

[DrBloodmoney]

1 minute ago, scemopagliaccioh said:

Then how do you check the majority, let alone decide  that said majority agrees with your opinion? This is a thread with 5 pages and multiple posters, me included, alright, the forums have a large array of users who didn’t read or know this thread exists, said site also has many many more users  who don’t use the forums but said change would affect them. This is not a situation you can childishly categorise as one side enlightened and the other ignorant like the flat earth thing.

 

A Poll?

[starcrunch061]

1 minute ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

No - that's true, but on the other hand, the majority should determine- or at least shape - the methodology on a site that is service-based in nature. 

 

I'm not saying everything should bend to the opinion of a mass majority - but given that the only people this really affects are all on this site, I don't see the argument against the nature of the services it provides being determined by a simple show of hands 

 

But you’re assuming that the majority is represented by...participants in this thread.  That’s like saying that, say, a majority of Scots want to leave/stay in the Union because a number of people on Nicola Sturgeon’s website are shouting “leave!”.
 

Or saying that 78% of people want to repeal Obamacare because of a youtube poll sent out to potential Trump backers in 2020.

 

This thread was started by someone who dislikes the current system. Naturally, it will attract people who dislike the current system, and most of those people don’t dislike it because they think the current rarity percentages are too low.

 

For example, I dislike the system, but I wouldn’t have bothered posting here, except that people started to suggest that all the “good” points were in favor of scrapping it altogether, and using base owners. That’s. Not. True.

 

Making this long post even longer, I guarantee you that if, today, the system changed so that base game owners was the number used the DLC rarity calculation, you would get plenty of pushback from the other side (assuming that most of them didn’t just vanish altogether).

[scemopagliaccioh]

Just now, DrBloodmoney said:

 

A Poll?

You still won’t reach the ones that don’t use the forums, a sizeable percent, basing this on majority rules is downright impossible, though yes, OP could have given us one.

[Shikotei-kun]

If you want to alert the majority of the site users that poll would need to be clearly visible and in such a way that it entices the viewer to actually think about it and vote their preferred method.

 

Otherwise only a small minority will determine what the masses will get.

[HusKy]

2 minutes ago, Shikotei-kun said:

If you want to alert the majority of the site users that poll would need to be clearly visible and in such a way that it entices the viewer to actually think about it and vote their preferred method.

 

Otherwise only a small minority will determine what the masses will get.

 

No need to do a poll if the outcome isn't going to change anything. If Sly wants to open such poll, he will.

[Arcesius]

5 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

For example, I dislike the system, but I wouldn’t have bothered posting here, except that people started to suggest that all the “good” points were in favor of scrapping it altogether, and using base owners. That’s. Not. True.

 

Hmm.. I honestly have yet to come across a "good" (which, again, is subjective) argument in favor of using a manufactured baseline for the computations. 

 

Also, just to be clear.. you seemed to suggest that people want this changed so that they can get "free UR trophies"? Personally, that's not why I am in favor of this change. I just don't care for made-up stats is all. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Shikotei-kun said:

Otherwise only a small minority will determine what the masses will get.

 

Let's be real. The masses won't get anything. This discussion is interesting because of its nature, but it will lead to absolutely no change. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Arcesius

[DrBloodmoney]

Just now, starcrunch061 said:

But you’re assuming that the majority is represented by...participants in this thread.  That’s like saying that, say, a majority of Scots want to leave/stay in the Union because a number of people on Nicola Sturgeon’s website are shouting “leave!”.
 

Or saying that 78% of people want to repeal Obamacare because of a youtube poll sent out to potential Trump backers in 2020.

 

This thread was started by someone who dislikes the current system. Naturally, it will attract people who dislike the current system, and most of those people don’t dislike it because they think the current rarity percentages are too low.

 

For example, I dislike the system, but I wouldn’t have bothered posting here, except that people started to suggest that all the “good” points were in favor of scrapping it altogether, and using base owners. That’s. Not. True.

 

Making this long post even longer, I guarantee you that if, today, the system changed so that base game owners was the number used the DLC rarity calculation, you would get plenty of pushback from the other side (assuming that most of them didn’t just vanish altogether).

 

Just now, scemopagliaccioh said:

You still won’t reach the ones that don’t use the forums, a sizeable percent, basing this on majority rules is downright impossible, though yes, OP could have given us one.

 

I agree - but I really don't think that's an argument against - and a poll is the only way I can think of,

 

Saying "Every person affected won't vote" is not really an argument - if that were the case, no country would ever have an election ever again...

 

...and saying "The other side will still argue" would be a quick way to ensure nothing ever got done anywhere. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Shikotei-kun said:

If you want to alert the majority of the site users that poll would need to be clearly visible and in such a way that it entices the viewer to actually think about it and vote their preferred method.

 

Otherwise only a small minority will determine what the masses will get.

 

The current system was determined by a small minority - of one.

[scemopagliaccioh]

1 minute ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

 

I agree - but I really don't think that's an argument against - and a poll is the only way I can think of,

 

Saying "Every person affected won't vote" is not really an argument - if that were the case, no country would ever have an election ever again...

 

...and saying "The other side will still argue" would be a quick way to ensure nothing ever got done anywhere. 

 

 

Hmm see, Arcesius actually made a point about this “the masses won’t get anything”, and I’m definitely sure we won’t get anything done, regardless if I like said change or not, knowing this, can you really blame those who don’t participate in this specific forums activity?

[Cleggworth]

3 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

The current system was determined by a small minority - of one.

 

Is that what it was? I remember the change but not what brought it about. That's disappointing

[HusKy]

The funny thing is, TLoU PS3 was used as one of the prime examples in favor of this change, yet the PS4 version is a prime example of how broken the system is.

 

(The system before was even worse though.)

Edited May 19, 2021 by HusKy

[Undead Wolf]

I don't like how the current DLC rarity is calculated. This method was chosen because it made the rarity "look about right" or whatever, but it's still just an arbitrary number. Personally, I'm of the mind that it should be using the base game owners to calculate the percentage, especially these days when free DLC trophy packs are so commonplace. I get that this would lead to a massive influx of ultra rare trophies which isn't exactly desirable, but at least it would be more accurate than what we have now.