Can we relegate threads about shovelware to some sort of sub-section?

[steel6burgh]

@DrBloodmoney

8 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

The end paragraph of my post is as succinct a summary of my feelings as I can give, I'm afraid:

 

I think a rarity board is only going to have the same effect as the current one - just from the opposite end.

People will still be doing what I personally dislike - choosing what to play based on the "rarity" of the trophies.

The only difference is, they will be choosing to play a bunch of niche, broken or downright bad games with very rare trophies, instead of easy, cheap, throwaway ones like they do now - but that is actually worse from my point of view - simply because those games take longer.

 

In the end, the thing that suffers is still the same - sales of good games, and the correlating health of gaming as an industry and an entity.

 

If someone stacks a bunch of Breakthrough rubbish, that takes them a half hour. Yes, it's silly and frivolous fare, but it doesn't take time away from them playing good games - they are still likely buying and supporting some good games too. If they are spending all their time grinding out crappy Ultra-rare, they are not only supporting bad games, they are also leaving themselves no time to engage with the good ones - therefore arguably doing more harm to the health of the industry, and harming the production of future good games to much greater extent.

 

 

I know - I'm making the same point as you, I think?

 

I'm saying -as someone intimately acquainted with addiction - the solution you propose is not one that would work, so that part of the argument isn't one I can buy into.

 

 

They do sell on Steam too - not in the massively inflated numbers - but they do. I basically agree on the trophy policy - as I've said many times - however, the difference between our points of view is on the level to which that is an acceptable byproduct. I'm of the opinion that if 10% of Ratalaika games are good, that still makes the 90% that aren't and the stacks of trophies other people use them for, worthwhile - given that I don't care about someone else's trophy list, but do care abut playing games.

 

 

Because 'eradicating' stuff I don't like isn't necessary. I'm not a King - I don't get to decide what everyone else can and can't do.

 

I think Fast and Furious, Star Wars, Marvel and James Cameron are the downfall of cinema - but I'm not for eradicating them either - they aren't for me - but as long as they aren't stifling the stuff that is for me - then why would I want to remove them from other people who do like them?

 

 

 

The confusion is not in my points, only in your interpretation... I think?

 

I am not a stubborn mule - I pride myself on not sticking my heels in, and if I were to be convinced by counter-argument that my point of view is wrong, or had my mind changed, I'd be the first to admit it - it just hasn't been, that's all. I don't think my opinions are contradictory - just a little less black and white than "Ban them All" or "EZPZ Rules!".

 

Sorry if they seem so - I really am trying to put across my genuine points of view here - I'm not trying to be difficult.

 

 

 

 

My point is thought that these game don't benefit anybody except the companies behind them.  in fact they hurt people.,  I've seen where people at top of leaderboard say they wish they didn't exist.  they only play them for the competition they are involved in and if they didn't exist it would free up time so that they could get down to enjoying quality games again.   I agree with what you're saying the rarity leaderboard would have an opposite effect.  people would play games with low rarity just to compete on that leaderboard seeking out the easiest with no doubt. Still that doesn't to me justify not having one if that is what people are doing on the other board already with the easy 5 minutes stacks.  Anyway good conversation but I'm pressing on with my night to other things.

 Have a good one!

[pinkrobot_pb]

2 minutes ago, Walt the Dog said:

Slight correction here: that's only the case for DLC trophies since they count owners as anyone who has at least one trophy in the corresponding DLC pack. For base lists, profiles at 0% count towards statistics; the only caveat is that they don't show up on the game leaderboard. This is how games like Aab's Animals, Sly 1, various Neptunia games, etc all tend to not have any trophies at 100% even though by the very nature of their lists, there's one single trophy that will always be someone's first regardless of how they play, usually because it's just for starting the game. This is also how you get odd lists like the PS3/PS4 Singstar games, FreeRealms, and Fortnite that are all flooded with high-rarity trophies since earning trophies requires some kind of in-game purchase like a subscription or, in Singstar's case, any 10 songs, but there are plenty of people who just play free components of the game or at least don't purchase what they'd need to actually earn trophies.

Ah, thanks for that. I figured that what I said was the case because deleting some of my own 0% lists did nothing for my stats that I could notice. Thanks for the correction.

[DrBloodmoney]

2 minutes ago, steel6burgh said:

@DrBloodmoney

I agree with what you're saying the rarity leaderboard would have an opposite effect.  people would play games with low rarity just to compete on that leaderboard seeking out the easiest with no doubt. Still that doesn't to me justify not having one if that is what people are doing on the other board already with the easy 5 minutes stacks.  

 

That's true - and frankly, if a rarity board were to pop up, I wouldn't be losing sleep over it - hell, if it was implemented well, I might even end up being a big proponent of it!

 

The bigger issue is that very little seems to get done around here in term of changes to the site, as Sly isn't making big changes on the regular at this point, so I'd be sad if the one change that was implemented was a poorly done rarity board, as it would likely be at the expense of other things. 

There are quite a few good suggestions for additions / changes waiting in the wings that the Mods and the CRT say are up to Sly and Sly alone!

 

2 minutes ago, steel6burgh said:

 Have a good one!

 

You too bud, take 'er easy ?

[Walt the Dog]

3 minutes ago, pinkrobot_pb said:

Ah, thanks for that. I figured that what I said was the case because deleting some of my own 0% lists did nothing for my stats that I could notice. Thanks for the correction.

As far as your own stats, PSNP doesn't count a game towards your completion stat until you've earned a trophy in it, so deleting your own 0% lists isn't going to affect anything on your end and depending on how many owners the games you deleted had, you may not have had much effect on the rarity either. Assuming a game had over 10,000 owners, deleting it from your profile could very well have outright no effect on the rarities of certain trophies since the site only tracks to the nearest hundredth of a percentile, so at anything over 10,000 owners, any given earner of a trophy would contribute less than 0.01% to the rarity, leading to some instances where a single owner may not contribute enough to make it to the next hundredth of a percent.

 

Also fun fact while I'm on the subject: there's a game called Fe that had exactly 10,000 owners at one point and due to hitting that exact number, the trophy rarities were essentially just their owner counts with a decimal in the middle. Using the platinum as an example...

[pinkrobot_pb]

4 minutes ago, DeepEyes7 said:

Around page 40.000 there is people with average 350 trophies, not too much but I see your point.

It's definitely good enough for me if you take some time to look and think about it for yourself, so thanks for that. I'm not expecting an actual change anyway, let alone a purge of the profiles I pointed to.

 

The thing is that people tend to get really worked up about this subject and that always seems so silly to me when the stats are so very skewed and oftentimes also outdated. Profiles that were not updated for 4 years, with not a single plat or completion percentage of any game over 20% is allowed to muddy the rarity waters and help make about 20 PS3 games ultra rare. Yes, let's definitely fight each other to the death based on shit like that

[Bumperklever]

Ah look, another thread, but this one got completely off topic. 

 

Majority conclusion:

 

Rarity leaderboard good, solid arguments, no downside other then people whining that this site is against them (even though every other leaderboard site already has one, so why not psnp). 

 

There will be major shift happening, not in regards to the absolute top, but definently a lot of the top 50. top 10 in my countries leaderboard completely changed. 

 

breakthrough games bad, but remember my chicken on the road thread where I was whining about a few things like the ez Plat and the shovelware aspect.

 

Everybody defending that crap and telling I was a whiner until the full 180 arrived and now even ezpz plat people are whining about these kind of shovelware. 

 

But my thread got deleted by the mods, someone gotta bring it back for my "I told you so" points. 

 

[pinkrobot_pb]

5 minutes ago, Bumperklever said:

Majority conclusion: Rarity leaderboard good, solid arguments, no downside other then people whining that this site is against them (even though every other leaderboard site already has one, so why not psnp).

To be honest, it would be an excellent addition. It takes nothing away from other players. The only reason that it has not been implemented is that the site owner just does not have time or motivation to add it. I think it really is that simple. As is the case with other excellent additions and improvements that have been coined in the last few years. This website is the virtual definition of moribund. Sometimes I feel like it's the endless bickering and trolling that supplies it just enough energy to keep going

Edited July 7, 2021 by pinkrobot_pb

[DrBloodmoney]

2 minutes ago, pinkrobot_pb said:

To be honest, it would be an excellent addition. It takes nothing away from other players. The only reason that it has not been implemented is that the site owner just does not have time or motivation to add it. I think it really is that simple.

 

How many different threads could this post be lifted, and place into, whole hog, and feel completely at home ?

[Walt the Dog]

2 minutes ago, pinkrobot_pb said:

It's definitely good enough for me if you take some time to look and think about it for yourself, so thanks for that. I'm not expecting an actual change anyway, let alone a purge of the profiles I pointed to.

 

The thing is that people tend to get really worked up about this subject and that always seems so silly to me when the stats are so very skewed and oftentimes also outdated. Profiles that were not updated for 4 years, with not a single plat or completion percentage of any game over 20% is allowed to muddy the rarity waters and help make about 20 PS3 games ultra rare. Yes, let's definitely fight each other to the death based on shit like that

 

On the subject of a fair amount of PS3 games being rarer than they should be, to my understanding, the site used to pull info off of people's friend lists for a time to artificially inflate numbers before I believe Sony stepped in to stop it, which would account for a fair amount of non-trophy hunters being on the site and for a lot of them flooding PS3 games while PS4 games generally have lower owner counts almost across the board, from the most niche titles to even big AAA blockbusters. Don't quote me on that though; that was a couple of years before I even started hunting and I can't even recall exactly where I heard it.

 

FWIW, I'm personally more or less fine with how rarities are on PS3 games. Leads to some weird stuff being rarer than it should be (Chaotic: Shadow Warriors is about as easy as any other kid's game from the PS3 era and is yet at 4% plat rarity between online trophies and a disturbing number of people being incapable of finding all of the secret areas), but I would honestly rather have that than the scenario now where a lot of the games that I play tend to skew significantly higher than comparable PS3 games would despite taking about as much effort with, at most, maybe the caveat of better game design as years go on easing people into the games in general (this is not counting stuff like, say, Compile Heart RPGs where trophy requirements have legitimately gotten 10x easier over the years for the most part). Then you have Disgaea 1 Complete, which is basically a straight port of a PS2 entry in a series where pretty much every PS3 entry is anywhere from decisively to barely UR in English, yet the NA and EU versions are pretty much the only Rare English plats in the series despite it still taking a good 80-100 hours going by guides in part because there's less owners now and the people who are super fans make up a higher percentage of the overall PSNP player base than they used to.

[Stevieboy]

1 minute ago, Walt the Dog said:

 

On the subject of a fair amount of PS3 games being rarer than they should be, to my understanding, the site used to pull info off of people's friend lists for a time to artificially inflate numbers before I believe Sony stepped in to stop it, which would account for a fair amount of non-trophy hunters being on the site and for a lot of them flooding PS3 games while PS4 games generally have lower owner counts almost across the board, from the most niche titles to even big AAA blockbusters. Don't quote me on that though; that was a couple of years before I even started hunting and I can't even recall exactly where I heard it.

 

You are correct (and I quoted you ). The site was able to see people's friends lists in the early days and add those profiles to the site at the same time the person added their own profile. It meant you were able to compare trophies and games with people on your friends list, which was handy to see if anyone on your friends list had a game you needed boosting. However, at some point Sony changed something and friends lists were no longer able to be seen by this site. This change occurred before the Vita and PS4 were launched, which does explain the inflated PS3 owners count compared to the other systems.

[xZoneHunter]

I feel at this point the rarity leaderboard is a pointless debate, as it will not be implement.

Much like any feature that's been suggested. To the point where the community took it upon themselves to do it. (Thanks @HusKy for PSNP+)

 

If you want additional leaderboards, stats and more features in general, just use TT. 

Edited July 7, 2021 by xZoneHunter

[Thrillhelm]

3 hours ago, AJ_-_808 said:

 

I was hesitant to further hijack this thread, but I think that horse took off.

 

 

@djb5f just wants a scaling point value, which, as far as I know, nobody has argued against.

 

@Thrillhelm wants a high enough cutoff point to include things that, to be frank, arent rare at that percentage.  Although, I think there's a misunderstanding. For example, the 70% trophy in SMB might not count on said board, but that doesn't exclude the entire game.  People would still get scaling points for each other SMB trophy under EG 50%.

 

There really isn't any good argument against an (additional) rarity board. It allows whomever would like to compete on it a chance to compete a bit more fairly (yes, this is subjective), while letting anyone that doesn't care for it the ability to keep chasing the original carrot.  It wouldnt be for everyone, but then again,  the current leaderboard isnt either.

 

Edit

Addendum 

A rarity leaderboard would also get more exposure to lost gems as more people purposely target ultrarares from games with few owners.  And with a constantly changing (scaling) value system in place, it definitely adds a different sense of competition for those that want it

For the record I don't want a cutoff point at all since I think the whole concept is flawed.

[You]

Here's a pointless fact to throw into this already off topic thread.

 

Every time I come back here to look at the new replies, it takes me about 5 minutes to read, which is longer than it takes to get a platinum on one of these Breakthrough "games".

[BGriff1986]

14 minutes ago, enaysoft said:

Here's a pointless fact to throw into this already off topic thread.

 

Every time I come back here to look at the new replies, it takes me about 5 minutes to read, which is longer than it takes to get a platinum on one of these Breakthrough "games".

Gonna need to start focusing on reading threads with shorter posts, m’dude. Otherwise you’ll never make it to the top of the forum leaderboards  

[Prometheous101]

https://psnprofiles.com/leaderboard/rarity
Rarity leaderboards do exist everyone.

Pointless to debate should they implement them as they already have.

[Bumperklever]

9 minutes ago, Prometheous101 said:

https://psnprofiles.com/leaderboard/rarity
Rarity leaderboards do exist everyone.

Pointless to debate should they implement them as they already have.

 

If only it was selectable in the front page and use a better metric that was discussed in the rarity leaderboard thread. There wouldn't be so much fuzz about this. 

 

Rarity leaderboard should be the golden standard and is, in my opinion, much more valuable then the normal leaderboard. 

[Arcesius]

15 minutes ago, Prometheous101 said:

https://psnprofiles.com/leaderboard/rarity
Rarity leaderboards do exist everyone.

Pointless to debate should they implement them as they already have.

 

It exists, but the one you linked to hasen't been updated in years, cheaters are not removed, and it adds values to rarity intervals. 

 

At least it needs to be reworked. The concept exists, but the implementation is missing. 

[djb5f]

7 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

According to PSNTL’s rarity leaderboard, I would - for example - still place far higher than you would on a rarity board - but I still fall in the ‘against’ camp - for exactly the reasons @djb5f, @Thrillhelm and some others here have said.

 

6 hours ago, AJ_-_808 said:

 

@djb5f just wants a scaling point value, which, as far as I know, nobody has argued against.

 

AJ, absolutely correct.

 

I am very much for a rarity leaderboard.  Long overdue.  I was also in favor of some sort of Ribbons implementation when that was brought up.

 

I was just bringing up the scoring system for a rarity leaderboard.

 

In fact, per psntrophyleaders, I currently place at #56 in the world ?

https://(URL not allowed)/leaderboard/rare_trophy?user=djb5f

 

[AJ_-_808]

3 hours ago, Thrillhelm said:

For the record I don't want a cutoff point at all since I think the whole concept is flawed.

 

How is it flawed?  Why should a trophy that more than half the people have obtained (thus, note being anything close to rare) be given value on a leaderboard that tracks rarity? 

 

You understand that as more and more people obtain said trophy, it becomes less and less valuable, right? Technically, you could think of it as having a value of .000000001, or pretty much 0.

 

In any case, it's far less flawed than a board that assigns the same value to a 1 minute platinum as it does to a 100 hour platinum.

 

 

In my opinion, region and platform autopops (including ps4 --> ps5 autopops, thanks Sony) have ruined the current leaderboard and one that has a scaling value would be more interesting.

[sepheroithisgod]

Since the thread has derailed, guess I'll share my own thoughts on this.

 

Let me start off by saying that EZPZ/Shovelware games are not necessarily bad games. Anytime I refer to them as trash, it's purely from a trophy perspective, on the flip side, having an extremely rare trophy list does not make it a good game, but there is one key difference:

 

One takes effort and the other doesn't. This is a fact.

 

Let's face it, we are here because in one way or another we all like trophies and there are plenty of ways to go about it. It's the same feeling as if a kid practiced every day for a sport, but doesn't get the position because another child's dad decided to sponsor the team.

 

One put effort and got cucked, while the other just got the spot due to money.

 

A rarity leaderboard fixes this problem for the people that feel like trophy hunting was about actually accomplishing a task. There is nothing special about a trophy that 99% achieve that give it a try. There is nothing special about a trophy where 50% of people that give it a try get it.

 

That said, Sony chose to call trophies in the 20-50% range "Uncommon," which is my understanding of why 50% was chosen as an arbitrary cut-off point.

 

Does this eliminate great games? Yes, but that's not the point of a rarity leader board. The point is to exclude those that don't take effort or anyone can achieve. In fact, there's an entire thread dedicated to the new Ratchet & Clank game because the plat is such a joke (still a great game).

 

Having multiple leaderboards just gives people more choice, if your not a fan of the filter, stick to the main one, there's no good argument against a rarity leaderboard.

 

More choice is always a good thing.

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by sepheroithisgod

[ThatMuttGuy]

I'd love to see a rarity leaderboard too. While it wouldn't be perfect no matter what way you do it, it would certainly be nice to see a leaderboard not littered with EZPZs. I think a 50% cutoff is more than fair. Why should a 50+% trophy have any value on a rarity leaderboard? 

 

I find this sort of discussion interesting, and it's not like there would be any downside. The normal leaderboard would still exist as well. 

[turniplord]

I hate the term "shovelware", people use it to describe games 'they' don't like these days, rather than the meaning it had a few generations ago.

As such, why should someone be allowed to deem a game as being trash, garbage, 'shovelware', or crap? A game you may think is pants could be fun for someone else. I personally enjoyed My Name is Mayo as it had a fun narrative, could be completed fairly fast and entertained me. Would I say it's 'shovelware'? No. Yet you might. 

Also, instantly dictating that all Ratalaika Games are Shovelware is very ignorant and says a lot about you. They're a publisher, publishing games from a wide variety of developers, so all the games are different - they just look similar because they tend to stick to porting certain game engine games. There have been some really fun and entertaining games released by them, especially if you're not simply looking for the platinum and you carry on playing and, you know, have fun playing the actual game to the end.

But, people like you instantly deem them as being unworthy and should be hidden just because you don't agree with their process regarding trophies. 


However, the feature you should be asking for, without labelling games you don't like as being something others don't want to see either, is a way for the site to let you view games by a certain publisher. Then, when you can see everything by Ratalaika, maybe have an option to 'hide' those games for you on your profile. That way, you can customise what you can and can't see, so you don't get the urge to click on a thread you have no interest in, read all the comments, reply to people, and then make a new thread complaining that you were forced to interact with threads on a public forum for games you don't like

[Deadly_Ha_Ha]

@turniplord that's all fine and well, but if a game has a platinum rarity as high as Mayo, it's a trophy trash game. Maybe not a trash game, but it's trash as it relates to trophy hunting. I think the conversation has changed direction at this point towards rarity leaderboards being featured more heavily or given more support on this site rather than whatever OP was originally saying

[MonaSaxPayne]

50 minutes ago, dovah said:

We’ve already lost Bethesda to Microsoft because of this nitpicking and complaining. How many other giants are we willing to lose over this? Huh?! 

Quote

 

 

lolwut

[totakos1]

Good point, It has nothing to do with the 7,5 billion dollars!!!