DLC % logic?

[BrettyBoy]

No clue.

[scemopagliaccioh]

6 minutes ago, Undead Wolf said:

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.

Now that I think about it...

Aren’t F ranked users not calculated on trophy rarity? As in, they need to earn at least one trophy for them to count on the %?
Fuck it, even if it takes me 100 URs away, if we go by how trophy rarities are calculated normally, then DLCs should be calculated on the % of  DLC owners, rather than  base game owners.

[Arcesius]

3 minutes ago, scemopagliaccioh said:

Now that I think about it...

Aren’t F ranked users not calculated on trophy rarity? As in, they need to earn at least one trophy for them to count on the %?

 

No, all players with the list on their profile contribute to the rarity of the base game trophies. Even those with a 0% list. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Arcesius

[djb5f]

All that has come from this discussion is that every proposed methodology has very apparent limitations.  
 

We don’t know DLC owners and unfortunately never will.  Therefore, all DLC rarity stats will be misrepresented no matter which method is used.

 

It’s about picking the lesser of all evils at this point.  All give very faulty measures.

[sepheroithisgod]

1 hour 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.

I think it would even out over time.

 

People who want to rank highly on a rarity leaderboard are gonna start aiming for Ultra Rare's and my guess is they will aim for the easiest ones (ironic right?), which will definitely be DLC trophies.  Give it a year or so and the most popular games will have their DLC rarity evened out to a certain extent.

 

That said, I think the majority of this site favors just getting the platinum trophy, so it really depends on how the community reacts and if rarity leaderboards are ever added/updated.

[starcrunch061]

18 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

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

 

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

 

Something did get done, and it wasn't by a minority of one (unless you consider that every change to the site, with or without support, is always at Sly's discretion). As someone who took some part in the original "debate", there was a LOT of discussion regarding the system, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't sly who came up with it, but rather Professor BamBam (if he didn't, he certainly supported it).

 

And again, as with any compromise, I imagine that the number of supporters of the actual system was small. The rest of us said, "Yeah - this isn't great, but it does give us some things while losing others" (which again is the essence of a compromise).

 

[scemopagliaccioh]

7 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

 

No, all players with the list on their profile contribute to the rarity of the base game trophies. Even those with a 0% list. 

I see, in that case, I remembered wrong.

[starcrunch061]

20 minutes ago, scemopagliaccioh said:

Now that I think about it...

Aren’t F ranked users not calculated on trophy rarity? As in, they need to earn at least one trophy for them to count on the %?
Fuck it, even if it takes me 100 URs away, if we go by how trophy rarities are calculated normally, then DLCs should be calculated on the % of  DLC owners, rather than  base game owners.

 

But we don't know that number. That (to me) is the whole problem here.

 

My other 98 cents:

 

Someone (possibly you) said that rarity and effort coincided. That's not true, but it's not ridiculous, either (and I think we're on the same side of this issue).

 

It's a convenient, plausible fiction for a trophy list of a base game with no MP trophies (which most games are). When I look at my trophy for finishing the Dark World on Super Meat Boy, I'm well aware that many people might have said, "Fuck it - I don't care about the Dark World. I'm not going to do this." But they always had the ability to do this. Any person who earned one trophy in Super Meat Boy had the option to earn that trophy.

 

But DLC completely destroys that fiction for me. I have zero interest in EVER revisiting Two Worlds 2. But if DLC rarity was computed off of base game owners, then every single trophy in the DLC would then become rarer than the plat itself, and for what reason? Because the vast, vast, VAST majority of people who bought Two Worlds 2 had no interest in revisiting it for DLC (one of which came out an amazing 9 YEARS after the release of the game). The UR designation becomes yet another example of "pay to win" mechanics in trophy hunting.

 

Obviously, free DLC is a different story, and I would absolutely love for this site to find a way to determine which games have free DLC, and compute rarities accordingly. It would hurt me, certainly - I have zero interest in revisiting, e.g., Amnesia for some shitty hard-mode trophy. But I have access to it without having to pay an additional surcharge.

 

38 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

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. 

 

I've already addressed this. Like I said, no one likes the "manufactured baseline". But the reason it's there is because neither side seemed terribly willing to cede literally ALL their ground to the other side.

 

38 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

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. 

 

if that's the case, you won't mind if the site uses the number of people who have earned at least one trophy in the DLC as the base for computing rarity?

Edited May 19, 2021 by starcrunch061

[Arcesius]

7 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

If that's the case, you won't mind if the site uses the number of people who have earned at least one trophy in the DLC as the base for computing rarity?

 

I actually addressed this in a response a couple of pages back ? (only stating it cause the discussion is getting out of hand, can't blame you for not reading all responses ..)

 

At least it would be based on a measurable quantity. The issue with that would still be the discrepancy with how other metrics on this site are computed, such as avg rarity and the rarity of a 100% list, both of which use all base game owners. 

 

That would make no sense to me. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Arcesius

[djb5f]

14 minutes ago, sepheroithisgod said:

I think it would even out over time.

 

People who want to rank highly on a rarity leaderboard are gonna start aiming for Ultra Rare's and my guess is they will aim for the easiest ones (ironic right?), which will definitely be DLC trophies.  Give it a year or so and the most popular games will have their DLC rarity evened out to a certain extent.

 

That said, I think the majority of this site favors just getting the platinum trophy, so it really depends on how the community reacts and if rarity leaderboards are ever added/updated.

 

1 hour ago, djb5f said:

Just look at psntrophyleaders rarity leaderboard to get an idea.  Yes, heavily dominated by DLC owners.  I was top 50 forever lol but have recently dropped to the second page.

https://(URL not allowed)/leaderboard/rare_trophy

 

So while inaccurately counting all base game owners for DLC rarity percentages would help me A LOT, it still is not a good solution.

 

 

 

 

Rarity leaderboards would largely become DLC ownership leaderboards.  
 

It’s kind of funny (and would help me) but including base game owners for DLC rarity percentages would render it meaningless.  
 

You are including a huge population in the denominator that don’t even have the content.

[starcrunch061]

2 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

 

I actually addressed this in a response a couple of pages back

 

At least it would be based on a measurable quantity. The issue with that would still be the discrepancy with how other metrics on this site are computed, susch as avg rarity and the rarity of s 100% list, both of which use all base game owners. 

 

That would make no sense to me. 

 

Again, we could dance forever on how the site chooses to compute these things. Average rarity is probably my greatest pet peeve of this entire site (and if DLC trophy rarity was changed as you mention, that combined with average rarity would probably drive me away from here).

 

You can hold an objective line all you want, but at the end of the day, most of what we have was put in place because of community request and compromise, and compromise brings about things that make no sense.

Edited May 19, 2021 by starcrunch061

[DrBloodmoney]

8 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

I have zero interest in EVER revisiting Two Worlds 2. But if DLC rarity was computed off of base game owners, then every single trophy in the DLC would then become rarer than the plat itself, and for what reason? Because the vast, vast, VAST majority of people who bought Two Worlds 2 had no interest in revisiting it for DLC (one of which came out an amazing 9 YEARS after the release of the game).

 

So what you are saying here - essentially - is that it is very rare for a player of that game  to want to go back and earn those DLC trophies....

...Ultra-Rare some might say...

 

...well gosh golly - if only there were a stat that was named as such, to be able to accurately reflect that...

 

[Cleggworth]

13 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

As someone who took some part in the original "debate", there was a LOT of discussion regarding the system

 

Was there any discussion into changing any of the other stats to be more consistent with this change? I still don't get why this was singled out and none of the others were. What is it about dlc rarity that got people so wound up that it was changed but not completion % or game ranks?

[scemopagliaccioh]

3 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

But we don't know that number. That (to me) is the whole problem here.

 

My other 98 cents:

 

Someone (possibly you) said that rarity and effort coincided. That's not true, but it's not ridiculous, either (and I think we're on the same side of this issue).

 

It's a convenient, plausible fiction for a trophy list of a base game with no MP trophies (which most games are). When I look at my trophy for finishing the Dark World on Super Meat Boy, I'm well aware that many people might have said, "Fuck it - I don't care about the Dark World. I'm not going to do this." But they always had the ability to do this. Any person who earned one trophy in Super Meat Boy had the option to earn that trophy.

 

But DLC completely destroys that fiction for me. I have zero interest in EVER revisiting Two Worlds 2. But if DLC rarity was computed off of base game owners, then every single trophy in the DLC would then become rarer than the plat itself, and for what reason? Because the vast, vast, VAST majority of people who bought Two Worlds 2 had no interest in revisiting it for DLC (one of which came out an amazing 9 YEARS after the release of the game). The UR designation becomes yet another example of "pay to win" mechanics in trophy hunting.

 

Obviously, free DLC is a different story, and I would absolutely love for this site to find a way to determine which games have free DLC, and compute rarities accordingly. It would hurt me, certainly - I have zero interest in revisiting, e.g., Amnesia for some shitty hard-mode trophy. But I have access to it without having to pay an additional surcharge.

I agree regarding the DLC part, I especially would like the NG+ Trophies to have a better rarity. As there’s no excuse people don’t go at it outside of it having no plat.

Regarding effort, I think many people confuse it with difficulty hence the argument (it’s just one category), a user earlier made the Fall Guys example saying that it devalues the effort argument but... the  single platinum stopper went from a hellish  luck (grind+ good teammates)  trophy to a easy one  you can boost easily in minutes, you cannot argue that the  efforts and dedication from getting that trophy, regardless if it’s from good or bad game design has diminished, and the new rarity, which I’m sure will continue to rise unless they patch it, is a good indicator of it.

[djb5f]

Just now, DrBloodmoney said:

 

So what you are saying here - essentially - is that it is very rare for a player of that game  to want to go back and earn those DLC trophies....

...Ultra-Rare some might say...

 

...well gosh golly - if only there were a stat that was named as such, to be able to accurately reflect that...

 

So by your logic, I think you would be in favor of calculating solely based on the # of achievers.  Just remove the denominator at this point if you want to calculate pure rarity.  

 

# of achievers is rarity in its purest form.  Who cares how many people own the content, right?

 

To me and others, rarity is % of earned divided by those who have said content.  To include base game owners for DLC rarity %’s is a foolhardy move.  You are manipulating the denominator to include folks who have no business being included.

 

All proposed “solutions” have major weaknesses.

 

 

 

[starcrunch061]

Just now, DrBloodmoney said:

So what you are saying here - essentially - is that it is very rare for a player of that game  to want to go back and earn those DLC trophies....

...Ultra-Rare some might say...

 

...well gosh golly - if only there were a stat that was named as such, to be able to accurately reflect that...

 

I'm not naive. I'm well aware that the lower the number of people that have earned a trophy, the rarer that trophy is. I certainly don't need this site (or anyone on it) to tell me that. After all, I can just use PSN for that information (and they even have the same UR designation percentage breakdowns).

 

The fact of the matter is, all of our "objective" numbers are made up at the end of the day. We allow this because, again, it's a convenient, plausible fiction that we are looking at non-cheating gamers who are interested in trophies here. That's why the UR here is more valuable than the UR on PSN, right? That's why the plat percentage of 0.28% for GH: Van Halen here is more valuable than the 3.7% percentage on PSN.

 

But DLC percentages have always been a problem in that regard.

 

 

[DrBloodmoney]

7 minutes ago, djb5f said:

To me and others, rarity is % of earned divided by those who have said content.  To include base game owners for DLC rarity %’s is a foolhardy move.  You are manipulating the denominator to include folks who have no business being included.

 

I'm including everyone who has the DLC attached to their profile, and therefore has an 'incomplete' game on their profile.

 

I get what you are saying, but that view - that DLC is only owned once purchased - is not supported ANYWHERE else on this site. 

The percentage of completion, the Rank, the prevalent "Completionist" mentality, The overall completion stat - every single other place that DLC can feature on a profile, it is counted as a part of the main game. 

 

It just feel like lunacy to have this one, single, outlying instance where it is treated differently.

Edited May 19, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[starcrunch061]

15 minutes ago, Cleggworth said:

Was there any discussion into changing any of the other stats to be more consistent with this change?

 

Yes.

 

15 minutes ago, Cleggworth said:

What is it about dlc rarity that got people so wound up that it was changed but not completion % or game ranks?

 

It wasn't. It was part of a lot of discussion. 

 

For example, I was of the opinion that DLC should be stricken completely from ANY computation whatsoever, and we should stick solely with base game numbers. I was a minority in this view (though not alone - there might have been one other person who agreed). I thought that game ranks were absurdly bad - I would cite Sound Shapes, where you have a C completion rank with the plat and no DLC, but could get to a B (or even A) rank without it. And I positively DESPISED average rarity (as I still do).

 

But in the end, the DLC percentage seemed to be the thing that got everyone talking (just like in this thread), and that was the object of the ultimate compromise...which I hated as well. In fact, I probably hate it more than most of you. I'm a mathematician (no fooling), and to this day, I can't figure out why we used the geometric mean. I know what it is, I know how it's computed, I know how to estimate it...and I don't know why it tells us anything good, other than it gave lower numbers than what we initially had.

 

But as I said, it was a compromise, and it was accepted.

Edited May 19, 2021 by starcrunch061

[ExHaseo]

Oh god. This again. 

 

The current system is a compromise so that DLC trophies aren't either absurdly rare or common. Taking all game owners makes it too rare, and taking just people who have earned a trophy in the pack makes it too common.

[Cleggworth]

1 minute ago, starcrunch061 said:

I positively DESPISED average rarity (as I still do).

 

Yes I have a vague recollection of average rarity being the ultimate culprit in all this, I bet sly still has nightmares over the decision to put that front and centre on peoples profiles ?

[DrBloodmoney]

6 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

I was of the opinion that DLC should be stricken completely from ANY computation whatsoever, and we should stick solely with base game numbers. 

 

That would've made Trophy-obsessives have a very different experience with Hitman 2 ?

 

"Right, done with the ICA Training, now.... and... oh. Guess I'm done..."

[starcrunch061]

Just now, DrBloodmoney said:

 

That would've made Trophy-obsessives have a very different experience with Hitman 2 

 

"Right, done with the ICA Training, now.... and... oh. Guess I'm done..."

 

I ain't pretending that my views aren't personal (though it would also affect me with Capcom Arcade Collection, a game that was often cited back in the day as the reason we needed to change how DLC percentages were computed).

[HusKy]

If having access to DLC is a prerequisite for magic rarities, then it only make sense to change rarities for trophies that require peripherals or PS+. These are also behind paywall not accessible after buying the game.

[DrBloodmoney]

1 minute ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

I ain't pretending that my views aren't personal (though it would also affect me with Capcom Arcade Collection, a game that was often cited back in the day as the reason we needed to change how DLC percentages were computed).

 

I mean, in the end, it's likely we'll never see eye to eye on this one - and even more likely that nothing will get done (at least in a hurry)? - but I can't get next to the notion that a poor 'compromise' having been reached years ago - that resulted in no one getting any kind of accurate statistics of any stripe - is a good reason to not re-visit the argument.

 

Its no surprise to me that the relevance of the methodology around rarity is back in discussion to be honest - yes, it is perennial, but especially relevant now. 

'Completionism' / 'rarity hunting' etc. are more popular than ever before, as a sort of Trophy-Hunter backlash against the onslaught of extreme high-level, low difficulty 'Receipt Collector' profiles, arguably pushing the relevance of the leaderboards to breaking point - and out of the reach of most 'standard' trophy hunters.

 

Without the draw of the leaderboards, which - lets face it -most of us are slowly dribbling down like custard on a wall regardless of what we play if it isn't endless stacks of half-hour plats - more and more people care about the more 'boutique' aspects of a profile - the completion percentage, the rarity, the variety etc. 

 

Makes sense. 

[starcrunch061]

3 minutes ago, HusKy said:

If having access to DLC is a prerequisite for magic rarities, then it only make sense to change rarities for trophies that require peripherals or PS+. These are also behind paywall not accessible after buying the game.

 

That's the reason I don't much brag about my Power Gig plat.

 

Well, that and the fact that the game absolutely sucks.

 

1 minute ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

I mean, in the end, it's likely we'll never see eye to eye on this one - and even more likely that nothing will get done (at least in a hurry) - but I can't get next to the notion that a poor 'compromise' having been reached years ago - that resulted in no one getting any kind of accurate statistics of any stripe - is a good reason to not re-visit the argument.

 

Its no surprise to me that the relevance of the methodology around rarity is back in discussion to be honest - yes, it is perennial, but especially relevant now. 

'Completionism' / 'rarity hunting' etc. are more popular than ever before, as a sort of Trophy-Hunter backlash against the onslaught of extreme high-level, low difficulty 'Receipt Collector' profiles, arguably pushing the relevance of the leaderboards to breaking point - and out of the reach of most 'standard' trophy hunters.

 

Without the draw of the leaderboards, which - lets face it -most of us are slowly dribbling down like custard on a wall regardless of what we play if it isn't endless stacks of half-hour plats - more and more people care about the more 'boutique' aspects of a profile - the completion percentage, the rarity, the variety etc. 

 

Makes sense. 

 

On this, we can agree...so long as you accept all my terms. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by starcrunch061