Jump to content

Another Rarity Leaderboard thread: Leaderboard that only includes games with under 75% platinum rates


Troz

Recommended Posts

There's been a lot of work towards a rarity leaderboard by @MMDE and at this point, and I guess always, the ball is in Sly's court. However, that court is abandoned. 

 

As a result, the forums will continue to be divided and we will see the same threads of both sides arguing.

Edited by sepheroithisgod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, woggly4 said:

 

From what I've heard from an indie developer: It's related to the amount of bronze/silver/gold trophies. Blacklight Retribution only has 1 silver and 22 bronze trophies. The trophy lists of easy plat games often contain mostly gold or silver trophies. As far as I know Sony doesn't disclose which amount of trophy types or game's trophy points allow a game to get a platinum but there seems to be a fixed amount and developers/publishers of easy plat games just play it safe and make every trophy a gold trophy.


That’s true, but we still don’t know why lists are just automatically given 10 gold and 1 silver, or 11 gold trophies. 
 

It’s fucking lazy. These lists wouldn’t of passed years ago. 
 

Lists are now literally ‘run from point A to point B’, boom, platinum trophy. 
 

The amount of people at my ranking who have all played at least 50 - 100 stacks of this trash is sickening. 
 

Games like Axiom Verge 2 just get shoved to the side while the trash lottery can attract 500 - 1000 active players on this website. Their priorities are messed up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

Time to start my experiment?

 

Remove a random EZPZ stacker a day, until the collective cries of thousands on a website force Sony (or developers/publishers) to change their ways?

 

Seems like a lot of leaderboard chasers are... A little questionable if you catch my drift *wink*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sepheroithisgod said:

There's been a lot of work towards a rarity leaderboard by @MMDE and at this point, and I guess always, the ball is in Sly's court. However, that court is abandoned. 

 
I see this mentioned many times in many different threads all over the forum. Is this actually true? That Sly has abandoned the forum? If it is, why is there a feedback section even open? (Because of the way complaints are worded it doesn’t seem like any other staff has autonomy to implement/change anything)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I think we can just skip to the final word on this one, without having to have any pesky discussion...

 

Weekend-at-PSNP.jpg

 

16 hours ago, FawltyPowers said:

9jKnvYD.jpg

 

 

and now I go and make a cup of tea

 

I am truly impressed, you guys really went above and beyond here xD 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a better suggestion.  Only one stack of a game counts towards leaderboards.  I've always felt rarity is a poor measure of how difficult a game is since some games do have inflated rarity for various reasons and you'll in some cases see vast differences in rarity between stacks and in other cases games have higher rarity for reasons beyond difficulty or time spent.  Stacks are really the huge issue here.  We already have most of the setup needed to make it so only one stack counts on the leaderboards with the setup for series, just would have to add something for standalone games with multiple stacks.  Having only one stack count would cut out the majority of the problems people have since the bigger issue is that many of these EZPZ games also have numerous stacks for various regions and platforms they support.  This would also eliminate the issues caused by PS5 autopopping and PS5 games having new stacks for no good reason in the majority of cases.

 

Set it so it defaults to the version with the highest completion, first played if both are equal, but player can change it if they so please.  Exceptions can be made for games that have an additional stack for a remaster, port, or remake such as FF7 and its remake, Persona 5 and Persona 5 Royal, etc. where there is a difference in the trophies due to additional content or something like Genshin Impact PS4 and PS5 where one is non-plat and the other is a plat.  Games like those aren't usually played for an easy plat because most of them are lengthy games.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, HondaHoe said:

 
I see this mentioned many times in many different threads all over the forum. Is this actually true? That Sly has abandoned the forum? If it is, why is there a feedback section even open? (Because of the way complaints are worded it doesn’t seem like any other staff has autonomy to implement/change anything)

I believe when I asked MMDE a few months ago, they mentioned that Sly hasn't contacted them in like three months. The last major update this website received was the PS5 stuff, but let's be honest that was the bare minimum that the website needed to continue.

 

There are a ton of feedback suggestions, many of which are great, that go ignored. Sometimes Husky will add them to PSNP+.

 

Why this is the case, no one knows, and if they do, no one shares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, HondaHoe said:

 
I see this mentioned many times in many different threads all over the forum. Is this actually true? That Sly has abandoned the forum? If it is, why is there a feedback section even open? (Because of the way complaints are worded it doesn’t seem like any other staff has autonomy to implement/change anything)

 

It certainly feels that way. I feel like most of the staff CTR, Guide team etc are pretty transparant with the community but Sly seems mia more often than not.

Communication is a real issue here. 

It would be Nice if we had some what of an Idea what features are being worked on, looked at or not on the agenda. 

Edited by xZoneHunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2021 at 3:34 AM, HYPERS said:

I know so many people are sick of cheap and easy platinums, and there is always a war against people who do it and don't do it.

 

I think there should be a special leaderboard that ONLY includes games with a 75% (or some other number) platinum percentage rate or under. I would like to see where I would rank.

 

I know Sly is probably asleep, or on vacation, or in the middle of Afghanistan, and he will never see this. But hey, it's worth a suggestion.


It would be better if it were a sliding scale like PSNTL does it.  Ultra Rares are worth a lot more than Very Rares that are worth a lot more than Rares and so on…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, djb5f said:


It would be better if it were a sliding scale like PSNTL does it.  Ultra Rares are worth a lot more than Very Rares that are worth a lot more than Rares and so on…

do you think it would be a good idea to have a scale for the current leaderboard, too?...let's say after you hit 1000 trophies, the value doubles, then 2000 and it doubles again, 5000 and it's tenfold and so on?...why should 4.8% be so much more valuable than 5.0% or 5.2%?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ProfBambam55 said:

do you think it would be a good idea to have a scale for the current leaderboard, too?...let's say after you hit 1000 trophies, the value doubles, then 2000 and it doubles again, 5000 and it's tenfold and so on?...why should 4.8% be so much more valuable than 5.0% or 5.2%?...


Because they are already nicely split into Rarity classes, it just makes sense and follows the taxonomy in place.  It’d work if you prefer to have every value calculated on that trophy percentage meaning the difference between 4.9% and 5.1% is the same as the difference between a 5.1% and 5.3% but I think using Rarity classes is sufficient enough.

 

To have 75% trophies like the OP suggested count the same as 1% trophies makes no sense for a Rarity leaderboard.    It defeats the whole purpose of a rarity leaderboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, djb5f said:


Because they are already nicely split into Rarity classes, it just makes sense and follows the taxonomy in place.  It’d work if you prefer to have every value calculated on that trophy percentage meaning the difference between 4.9% and 5.1% is the same as the difference between a 5.1% and 5.3% but I think using Rarity classes is sufficient enough.

 

To have 75% trophies like the OP suggested count the same as 1% trophies makes no sense for a Rarity leaderboard.    It defeats the whole purpose of a rarity leaderboard.

are you aware that psnp created those classes a long time ago and sony adopted them?...mathematically they are fictional boundaries...let's say we gave people with 1000+ trophies a name like avid hunter, 2000+ super hunter,  5000+ ultra hunter, then would you be OK with a sliding scale?...

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the op suggesting 75% = 1%...I thought they were suggesting removing anything above 75% from a potential rarity leaderboard...perhaps I misinterpreted...

 

edit: the even break down you suggested above exists already on this site...it's the average rarity stat...the issue is a single game with 1% will always yield a lower stat than 50000 2% ones...so a person who completes the rarest game/trophy only will top the leaderboards...finding a solution to this is quite difficult mathematically...it is seemingly impossible to compare percentages while also taking into consideration their volume without creating false boundaries...

Edited by ProfBambam55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2021 at 10:05 AM, IntroPhenom said:

 

And it better be black tea, 'cause herbal tea ain't tea.  It's just wilted, dried flowers in a little bag.  Not tea.  This is not opinion, this is fact.  

 

(And this is absolutely not an attempt to derail the leaderboard nonsense...but I just realized the term 'leaderbored', which is exactly what I am of discussions like this - bored.  So, hey, my attempt at humorous sarcasm paid off!)

 

Every time I see one of these threads I'm going to respond with 'I'm leaderbored of this.'.  Can't wait.

Don't worry topics like this derails itself since their whole point is moot and it's about something that has been discussed 3 times every week now with long wall texts, pettiness, conspiracy theories throw a dash of romance and it's a soap opera since the drama is always overflowing and to be honest it's kinda amusing, by the way coffee is better than tea anyways everyone knows that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ProfBambam55 said:

are you aware that psnp created those classes a long time ago and sony adopted them?...mathematically they are fictional boundaries...let's say we gave people with 1000+ trophies a name like avid hunter, 2000+ super hunter,  5000+ ultra hunter, then would you be OK with a sliding scale?...

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the op suggesting 75% = 1%...I thought they were suggesting removing anything above 75% from a potential rarity leadtboard...perhaps I misinterpreted...


Like I said, I am perfectly fine with a full sliding scale where a sub 1% trophy counts a lot more than a 4.9% trophy.  It would add precision and would be best case.

 

Btw, I am perfectly fine with categories for trophy hunters (avid hunter, etc.) based on # of trophies or trophy level.  Categorization is not a bad thing,  I am also very cool with the Grade ranks we get for each game for completion percentage. 

 

I have seen many requests for a “rarity” leaderboard that simply lops off trophies that are more common than X (I.e. 50%, 75%) but that they all count the same.  That is what we want to avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember my words!

Sony is more then aware about addiction of players to cheap platinums. Just look at PS5, no real games, but all crap platinums already there.

If PSNprofiles block some how this crap, i can asure you Sony will not give proper synchronization to this site.

 

Sony like EA now. One selling cards and boxes, other selling platinums.

 

Edited by Riv1404
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, djb5f said:


Like I said, I am perfectly fine with a full sliding scale where a sub 1% trophy counts a lot more than a 4.9% trophy.  It would add precision and would be best case.

 

Btw, I am perfectly fine with categories for trophy hunters (avid hunter, etc.) based on # of trophies or trophy level.  Categorization is not a bad thing,  I am also very cool with the Grade ranks we get for each game for completion percentage. 

and this is where we disagree...I don't think a sliding scale is necessary to have a good leaderboard...I suspect that most people who top the current leaderboard would still top a mathematically "correct" (lack of a better term) rarity one and that the need for skewing might've come from this realization...volume is rewarding and in reality 0.1% is only one point more than 1.1%...

 

and just to be clear, I'm OK with disagreeing on this perspective...I do think any leaderboard should represent what the community wants and I'd be curious to see what would happen if more leaderboards were created...more inclusion, more division, or nothing at all...I'm guessing the latter, so why not if it's what people want?...I'm just a bit of a math nerd so I get involved in this stuff from time to time as I find the formulae and mindset behind the stats  interesting to analyze...

 

leaderboards affect me very little...no idea where I'd be on any of them...I see what we do here as collecting, not as a competition...people want their collections to be noticed/recognized...leaderboards might certainly help with that...

Edited by ProfBambam55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ProfBambam55 said:

and this is where we disagree...I don't think a sliding scale is necessary to have a good leaderboard...I suspect that most people who top the current leaderboard would still top a mathematically "correct" (lack of a better term) rarity one and that the need for skewing might've come from this realization...volume is rewarding and in reality 0.1% is only one point more than 1.1%...

 

and just to be clear, I'm OK with disagreeing on this perspective...I do think any leaderboard should represent what the community wants and I'd be curious to see what would happen if more leaderboards were created...more inclusion, more division, or nothing at all...I'm guessing the latter, so why not if it's what people want?...I'm just a bit of a math nerd so I get involved in this stuff from time to time as I find the formulae and mindset behind the stats  interesting to analyze...

 

leaderboards affect me very little...no idea where I'd be on any of them...I see what we do here as collecting, not as a competition...people want their collections to be noticed/recognized...leaderboards might certainly help with that...


Not sure I follow but are you saying that you would count 75% trophies (or whatever the arbitrary cutoff is) the same as sub 1% trophies in this leaderboard?  
 

If so, then I’d call THAT leaderboard a non-EZPZ (I.e. non-Ratailaika, non-Breakthrough, non-Mayo, non-Break, etc.) leaderboard but definitely not a true rarity leaderboard.

 

For a rarity leaderboard, by definition, you need a sliding scale to value Rare trophies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, djb5f said:


Not sure I follow but are you saying that you would count 75% trophies (or whatever the arbitrary cutoff is) the same as sub 1% trophies in this leaderboard?  
 

If so, then I’d call THAT leaderboard a non-EZPZ (I.e. non-Ratailaika, non-Breakthrough, non-Mayo, non-Break, etc.) leaderboard but definitely not a true rarity leaderboard.

 

For a rarity leaderboard, by definition, you need a sliding scale to value Rare trophies.

I'm not sure I understand your question but I'll try to reply...I'm suggesting no arbitrary cutoffs...I think the average rarity stat is the most "fair" stat we have so far...0.1% = 0.1%...75% = 75%...99% = 99%...the issue is taking volume into consideration...1 person with one trophy that has the lowest % (let's say 0.01% for the sake of discussion) of all trophies tops the leaderboards over another person with 1 000 0.02% ones...i don't think this should be the case, nor do i have a solution for this but don't believe arbitrary sliding scales are the answer either...

 

if there were serious talks about implementing a rarity leaderboard, I'd consider meeting up with some of the local uni math profs and students to talk over formulae that might exist that I'm unaware of that might be better than what we have...I'd also follow through on trying to help solidify a whitelist idea, too...haha...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ProfBambam55 said:

I'm not sure I understand your question but I'll try to reply...I'm suggesting no arbitrary cutoffs...I think the average rarity stat is the most "fair" stat we have so far...0.1% = 0.1%...75% = 75%...99% = 99%...the issue is taking volume into consideration...1 person with one trophy that has the lowest % (let's say 0.01% for the sake of discussion) of all trophies tops the leaderboards over another person with 1 000 0.02% ones...i don't think this should be the case, nor do i have a solution for this but don't believe arbitrary sliding scales are the answer either...

 

if there were serious talks about implementing a rarity leaderboard, I'd consider meeting up with some of the local uni math profs and students to talk over formulae that might exist that I'm unaware of that might be better than what we have...I'd also follow through on trying to help solidify a whitelist idea, too...haha...


oh, we are probably on the same page lol.

 

yes. Of course volume would be a part of it!  ?  It would not just be based on your single lowest trophy percentage lol.

 

when I say sliding scale, I am also saying that a 0.01 counts a little more than 0.02 that counts a little more than a 0.03 and all the way up.

 

But the more trophies you have absolutely factors into it!!  PSNTL does this now (only difference is they break it up by class such as all Ultra Rares, which is less than 1% there, count the same ) but using exact percentage like you say (and I agree) would add more precision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...