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

[Sikutai]

9 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

I already did.

Multiple times, in fact.

 

It's on page 4 of this thread, and - helpfully, I highlighted it in blue the second time - HERE

 

Feel free to read - and to agree or disagree - but don't try to claim there is no neutral or unbiased arguments being made.

 

 

 

Fun Fact: You are the same user who had a comment removed - only a few months back - making fun of other site users discussion of their disabled/ Additional Needs children, so forgive me if your little "call for civility" falls on deaf ears.

 

 

You are part of this group and claiming something (which is not true) and referring to an allegedly deleted post from me, where I can't even defend myself because the post is supposed to be deleted, is part of your psychological games. You always work like this. Since I am not a native Americanish speaker, I have no chance to adequately defend myself against natural Americanish speakers, because even with Google Translator, many things cannot be communicated as I would like. So I don't even try.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Sikutai

[Thrillhelm]

1 minute ago, AJ_-_808 said:

 

Do you disagree that people hunting ultra rares exclusively, are probably already do that?  If that's how/what they choose to play, why deny them a leaderboard?

 

Trophies in of themselves would be the problem you're getting at, just depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.

It's more about thinking the idea through. While I am for a rarity leaderboard, it needs more thought put in since its flawed. I'd say common trophies need to have a point value in a rarity leaderboard rather than being worth zero. Which another leaderboard site does. Just for an example.

[DeepEyes7]

2 minutes ago, Thrillhelm said:

 

I mentioned earlier its the forum's fault since these kind of attacks on users should not happen when rules are enforced more strictly. There could be a good discussion if it weren't for the ad hominem comments.

 

 

Calling everything that goes against their ideas an "attack", asking for more strict rules and enforcing moderation.... Damn, where have I seen that?

[DrBloodmoney]

1 minute ago, DeepEyes7 said:

 

I will only add one thing to your opinion on the link, if people will go to play broken and niche games just to get URs... eventually they will stop being Ultra Rares because more people will get them, in some way that will take out the fake URs and I see that as a good thing...

 

Possibly - but that is hardly a great thing - Having a bunch of broken and bad games suddenly get popular as people chase the Ultra Rare trophies might seem like a good thing from a very specific trophy hunting stand-point, but it is not a good thing for the industry if those games end up selling inflated numbers at the expense of good games. The people putting games out don't care about the rarity of trophies - they care about sales. Anything that inflates the sales of broken or bad games, and decreases the sales of good ones is not a positive for the future of games as a whole, in my opinion.

[Thrillhelm]

1 minute ago, DeepEyes7 said:

 

Calling everything that goes against their ideas an "attack", asking for more strict rules and enforcing moderation.... Damn, where have I seen that?

Nothing wrong with a moderated thread, and its not you who gets stat-shamed here for no reason. This isn't wild west, its a forum with rules and in my opinion people went too far here. 

[steel6burgh]

1 minute ago, Thrillhelm said:

So that means his argument is invalid then?

 

I mentioned earlier its the forum's fault since these kind of attacks on users should not happen when rules are enforced more strictly. There could be a good discussion if it weren't for the ad hominem comments.

 

grow up and put your big boy britches on.  If you can't take a little heat over stacking easy games you will have a tough time in life.   You are arguing your point of view on a thread where the people are overwhelmingly against you so you are sort of putting yourself out there for it. You haven't made a valid argument.  All i hear is you have put too much time into your personal list playing high percentage games to give up a fight against a different leaderboard.  Despite what some people may think I lump you into the biased and selfish category.  Why not have both leaderboards and make everyone happy?  Because you don't wanna!    Earlier you accused me of putting words in your mouth but if you read it I did no such thing.  You are trying to martyr yourself so to speak and this is an adult thread and as far as I see nobody is badgering you or giving you too hard a time.   You respond back to every post so if you want out of it quit posting.  simple as that.  

[DeepEyes7]

Just now, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Possibly - but that is hardly a great thing - Having a bunch of broken and bad games suddenly get popular as people chase the Ultra Rare trophies might seem like a good thing from a very specific trophy hunting stand-point, but it is not a good thing for the industry if those games end up selling inflated numbers at the expense of good games. The people putting games out don't care about the rarity of trophies - they care about sales. Anything that inflates the sales of broken or bad games, and decreases the sales of good ones is not a positive for the future of games as a whole, in my opinion.

 

In first place I dont know why you think that people that goes for the actual LB will instantly go to for the rarity LB too, the main LB wont be replaced and I think that people that go for easy plats will continue playing in that way.

 

Second, broken bad games becoming popular just for UR trophy hunters is the same thing that you have now with Breakthrough games, the only difference (as you noted above) is that the actual broken games are shorter, nothing else... And, the effect will be temporary because once the trophies stop being URs then nobody will continue chasing them

 

I understand your point of bad games taking over the position of good games just because trophy hunters wants a fast/easy plat, but telling that one poison is better than the other just because its effect is shorter isn't the solution...

[DrBloodmoney]

17 minutes ago, Thrillhelm said:

So that means his argument is invalid then?

 

I mentioned earlier its the forum's fault since these kind of attacks on users should not happen when rules are enforced more strictly. There could be a good discussion if it weren't for the ad hominem comments.

 

I'm part of your call for civil discussion - there are comments of mine - in this very thread - arguing that point - including this one, in which I even tagged you as a citation.

 

I am fully in favour of a discussion of the subject, without everyone arguing that everyone else is just out for themselves, and arguing their own case, rather than what they think would be fair in a vacuum.

 

What I can't stomach, is people who have shown themselves to have no actual interest in civility, but argue for it in some threads, simply because they feel like it is a way to win an argument, rather than something they actually believe in - and have proven such with past (recent) behaviour.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Arcesius]

9 minutes ago, Thrillhelm said:

It's more about thinking the idea through. While I am for a rarity leaderboard, it needs more thought put in since its flawed. I'd say common trophies need to have a point value in a rarity leaderboard rather than being worth zero. Which another leaderboard site does. Just for an example.

 

Again, it is flawed in your opinion. There was a poll about where the cut-off point should be, with hundreds of votes (I tried to find the poll but wasn't successful). Most people wanted to cut the points at 50% rarity, with some people wanting to make the cut at 75%, others at 25%. All of those people certainly don't think that the idea is flawed, otherwise they would have picked the "no cut-off" option. 

 

It doesn't need more thought. The majority of people that participated in the discussion about how to implement such a LB came to an agreement. It's just the execution that's missing (and probably will never happen). 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Arcesius

[AJ_-_808]

6 minutes ago, Thrillhelm said:

It's more about thinking the idea through. While I am for a rarity leaderboard, it needs more thought put in since its flawed. I'd say common trophies need to have a point value in a rarity leaderboard rather than being worth zero. Which another leaderboard site does. Just for an example.

 

Yes, I think that goes back to our original debate.

 

Original question- why should a trophy that every one out of two people has (not rare by definition) hold a value on a rarity leaderboard 

 

New question- said trophy would likely have a value less than 1, but would technically have value. Do you think that's sufficient?

[DrBloodmoney]

5 minutes ago, DeepEyes7 said:

 

In first place I dont know why you think that people that goes for the actual LB will instantly go to for the rarity LB too, the main LB wont be replaced and I think that people that go for easy plats will continue playing in that way.

 

Second, broken bad games becoming popular just for UR trophy hunters is the same thing that you have now with Breakthrough games, the only difference (as you noted above) is that the actual broken games are shorter, nothing else... And, the effect will be temporary because once the trophies stop being URs then nobody will continue chasing them

 

I understand your point of bad games taking over the position of good games just because trophy hunters wants a fast/easy plat, but telling that one poison is better than the other just because its effect is shorter isn't the solution...

 

I don't think the same people who chase the current LB would go for a rarity one - that's the point. 

I think a whole new crop of people - who currently play lots of good games - would get suckered into forgoing them, and playing broken, bad or ultra niche ones instead.

 

If I thought the same people who are already engaged in negative practices were the only ones who would be affected by a rarity board, I would be fine with it - those folks aren't 'helping' the health of the industry right now. It's the fact that a new crop of people who be pulled into such engagement by the new board - multiplying the problem, rather than simply changing the focus of it that makes me leery of the idea.

Edited July 8, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[DeepEyes7]

6 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

 

Again, it is flawed in your opinion. There was a poll about where the cut-off point should be, with hundreds of votes (I tried to find the poll but wasn't successful). Most people wanted to cut the points at 50% rarity, with some people wanting to make the cut at 75%, others at 25%. All of those people certainly don't think that the idea is flawed, otherwise they would have picked the "no cut-off" option. 

 

It doesn't need more thought. The majority of people that participated in the discussion about how to implement such a LB came to an agreement. It's just the execution that's missing (and probably will never happen). 

 

There you have them good man...

 

 

Don't mind the hundreds of votes, they probably are 10-15 ppl with multiple accounts...

Edited July 8, 2021 by DeepEyes7

[Thrillhelm]

2 minutes ago, steel6burgh said:

grow up and put your big boy britches on.  If you can't take a little heat over stacking easy games you will have a tough time in life.   You are arguing your point of view on a thread where the people are overwhelmingly against you so you are sort of putting yourself out there for it. You haven't made a valid argument.  All i hear is you have put too much time into your personal list playing high percentage games to give up a fight against a different leaderboard.  Despite what some people may think I lump you into the biased and selfish category.  Why not have both leaderboards and make everyone happy?  Because you don't wanna!    Earlier you accused me of putting words in your mouth but if you read it I did no such thing.  You are trying to martyr yourself so to speak and this is an adult thread and as far as I see nobody is badgering you or giving you too hard a time.   You respond back to every post so if you want out of it quit posting.  simple as that.  

You read way too much out of my comments just so it helps your narrative. Again you put words in my mouth.

 

Repeatedly I have said I want a rarity leaderboard too since the original leaderboard won't go away anyways. A replacement and the fear for it is something people try to put into my argument.

 

And don't come with that "you will have trouble in life" nonsense, like looking at some trophy stats make you an expert.

 

And this thread has ceased to be an "adult thread" long ago, or is derailing the topic, insulting and ad hominem now part of a healthy discussion? You know, some people don't act civilized here because that's an achievement not rare enough for them to care.

[hBLOXs]

37 minutes ago, Sikutai said:

hunter and gatherer.

Ah, but that’s where I have to disagree.

Low hanging fruit that drops almost automatically onto your pile is “gathered”. “Hunted” are the trophies that makes gamers like me ask for a rarity leaderboard.

 

 

 

[DeepEyes7]

4 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

I don't think the same people who chase the current LB would go for a rarity one - that's the point. 

I think a whole new crop of people - who currently play lots of good games - would get suckered into forgoing them, and playing broken, bad or ultra niche ones instead.

 

If I thought the same people who are already engaged in negative practices were the only ones who would be affected by a rarity board, I would be fine with it - those folks aren't 'helping' the health of the industry right now. It's the fact that a new crop of people who be pulled into such engagement by the new board - multiplying the problem, rather than simply changing the focus of it that makes me leery of the idea.

 

But why people that didn't get sucked by the actual "easy plat system" would be sucked by the rarity one? I'm not just antagonizing with you, I just think that people that will use the rarity LB is the people that is already doing that but don't have a place to belong because the actual LB got distorted, and the people that doesn't care will continue with their business... But well, that's just our opinions... Thanks for not get vicitmized for everything.

[HusKy]

15 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

 

Again, it is flawed in your opinion. There was a poll about where the cut-off point should be, with hundreds of votes (I tried to find the poll but wasn't successful). Most people wanted to cut the points at 50% rarity, with some people wanting to make the cut at 75%, others at 25%. All of those people certainly don't think that the idea is flawed, otherwise they would have picked the "no cut-off" option. 

 

It doesn't need more thought. The majority of people that participated in the discussion about how to implement such a LB came to an agreement. It's just the execution that's missing (and probably will never happen). 

 

Shouldn't this be solved by the curve in the equation? I'm curious why this artificial cutoff is the "popular" choice. If one leaderboard counts all trophies and the other only some trophies, that doesn't sound very good to me.

[steel6burgh]

1 minute ago, Thrillhelm said:

You read way too much out of my comments just so it helps your narrative. Again you put words in my mouth.

 

Repeatedly I have said I want a rarity leaderboard too since the original leaderboard won't go away anyways. A replacement and the fear for it is something people try to put into my argument.

 

And don't come with that "you will have trouble in life" nonsense, like looking at some trophy stats make you an expert.

 

And this thread has ceased to be an "adult thread" long ago, or is derailing the topic, insulting and ad hominem now part of a healthy discussion? You know, some people don't act civilized here because that's an achievement not rare enough for them to care.

well your version of a rarity board is to award points for common trophies it's not a rarity leaderboard then  so I think you have the flawed version of it in your head not the other way around.  And for the record I don't care what games you play I just want a 2nd leaderboard  where such games are not counted because they take too little time and effort.  If you feel harassed and badgered over the games you play having two leaderboards to make the other side of the argument happy should eliminate that and if it don't I'll be jumping in on posts telling people not to badger you taking your side.  My argument will be there are two leaderboards for two separate play styles so mind your business.   

[DeepEyes7]

2 minutes ago, HusKy said:

 

Shouldn't this be solved by the curve in the equation? I'm curious why this artificial cutoff is the "popular" choice. If one leaderboard counts all trophies and the other only some trophies, that doesn't sound very good to me.

 

Maybe because it's easier to understand if you use fixed ranges like the actual system. Just the end won't be at 100%.

Edited July 8, 2021 by DeepEyes7

[Arcesius]

3 minutes ago, HusKy said:

 

Shouldn't this be solved by the curve in the equation? I'm curious why this artificial cutoff is the "popular" choice. If one leaderboard counts all trophies and the other only some trophies, that doesn't sound very good to me.

 

Yeah but the way it would be implemented is that it would assign integer values to rarities. If we would allow for decimals, you could have an asymptotic curve that assigns at least some fraction of points to all rarities. But if not, then you would have all trophies between say 40% and 100% rarity give 1 point. 

 

I'd be up for a proper curve without rounding. Then a 75% trophy would maybe add 0.05 points or so ? I wonder if that would make people that want all trophies to count happy. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Arcesius

[DrBloodmoney]

13 minutes ago, DeepEyes7 said:

 

But why people that didn't get sucked by the actual "easy plat system" would be sucked by the rarity one? I'm not just antagonizing with you, I just think that people that will use the rarity LB is the people that is already doing that but don't have a place to belong because the actual LB got distorted, and the people that doesn't care will continue with their business...

 

While I can see that argument, I think precedent is on my side here. Do you really think that the people who are purely playing "EZPZ" stacks now, would genuinely have though, back when trophies were first introduced, that that was how they would end up spending their time ten years down the line?

 

It's something that people slowly fall into, not something they set out to do - I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that none of the folks who spend all day just stacking Breakthrough games and playing Ratalaika games 6-stacks deep without caring one bit for the actual games they are playing and just getting the trophies as fast as possible and moving on genuinely imagined, 10 years ago, that that was what they would be spending their gaming hours doing.

 

I feel like UR chasing would be the same - it starts with one or two, then 3 or 4, and before you know it, you are grinding away as the fifth stack of Space Overlords or some such nonsense and not bothering to pick up Sekiro or Dark Souls, because the rarity seems like it isn't worth the hassle...

 

Quote

But well, that's just our opinions... Thanks for not get vicitmized for everything.

 

?

Don't worry mate, absolutely no butt-hurtitude here ?

I think we can all disagree without feeling victimised... it helps when you genuinely believe your points of view, and aren't just saying them to be antagonistic or to justify your own profile ?

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

 

Yeah but the way it would be implemented is that it would assign integer values to rarities. If we would allow for decimals, you could have an asymptotic curve that assigns at least some fraction of points to all rarities. But if not, then you would have all trophies between say 40% and 100% rarity give 1 point. 

 

I'd be up for a proper curve without rounding. Then a 75% trophy would maybe add 0.05 points or so  I wonder if that would make people that want all trophies to count happy. 

 

That's pretty much how PSNTL does it, I think. A Breakthrough is worth 200 'point' and something like Invisible Inc is 6012 'points' - so someone would have to S-Rank 30 breakthroughs for the same 'points' value as one Invisible Inc.

Edited July 8, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[Thrillhelm]

3 minutes ago, steel6burgh said:

well your version of a rarity board is to award points for common trophies it's not a rarity leaderboard then  so I think you have the flawed version of it in your head not the other way around.  And for the record I don't care what games you play I just want a 2nd leaderboard  where such games are not counted because they take too little time and effort.  If you feel harassed and badgered over the games you play having two leaderboards to make the other side of the argument happy should eliminate that and if it don't I'll be jumping in on posts telling people not to badger you taking your side.  My argument will be there are two leaderboards for two separate play styles so mind your business.   

So another site that does value commons at least a point so they show up (while ultra rares make way much more points it means commons can make the tiny difference - after all, a person with more trophies than the other should not be at an unfair disadvantage) isnt doing it right then?

 

I mean lets say an ultra rare is worth 50 points and a common is one point, that would be fine since it values the UR but still recognizes the common as a trophy.

[HusKy]

4 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

 

Yeah but the way it would be implemented is that it would assign integer values to rarities. If we would allow for decimals, you could have an asymptotic curve that assigns at least some fraction of points to all rarities. But if not, then you would have all trophies between say 40% and 100% rarity give 1 point. 

 

I'd be up for a proper curve without rounding. Then a 75% trophy would maybe add 0.05 points or so  I wonder if that would make people that want all trophies to count happy. 

 

Yes, of course I was thinking about decimals. I don't see the need for integers or maybe I'm missing something.

[steel6burgh]

3 minutes ago, HusKy said:

 

Shouldn't this be solved by the curve in the equation? I'm curious why this artificial cutoff is the "popular" choice. If one leaderboard counts all trophies and the other only some trophies, that doesn't sound very good to me.

the curve in the equation takes place between .01% to .50% rarity.  .01% trophies might get 1000 points and 50% trophies might be dwindled down all the way to 1 point.  Trophies above 50% are not counted at all to eliminate easy games like breakthrough gaming and ratalaka.  sure some easier trophies even in hard game will not count but it's ok this is what the people who want this type of leaderboard want.  The mistake that is being made here is people think this leaderboard should be  fair to the trophies they have already achieved so some people can't accept that their 40,000 trophies that came from easy minimal input games will hold no value, but that is in fact the entire point.  The whole system really only needs to exist to counter this never ending wave of easy and quick games.  The whole point is to eliminate them form the competition so that other people can compete for a leaderboard without having to pay for and spend time playing these shovel ware type games.  Much like the current leaderboard isn't for us this new rarity leaderboard isn't designed for them. 

[Arcesius]

Just now, HusKy said:

Yes, of course I was thinking about decimals. I don't see the need for integers or maybe I'm missing something.

 

You are not missing anything... Just that all proposals thus far have included rounding to the closest integer. I guess because you don't want to have 41693.567 points ? It would be worth a discussion to have a proper asymptotic for the actual computations, and only round once the points have been aggregated. 

[HusKy]

2 minutes ago, steel6burgh said:

eliminate easy games like breakthrough gaming and ratalaka.

These games would award you virtually nothing. This is a non-issue.

 

1 minute ago, Arcesius said:

I guess because you don't want to have 41693.567 points 

Yep, but not a problem per se.

 

1 minute ago, Arcesius said:

It would be worth a discussion to have a proper asymptotic for the actual computations, and only round once the points have been aggregated. 

Maybe, but any form of rounding in a leaderboard is usually no-go. Keep the decimals. I see no problem.