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

[scemopagliaccioh]

1 hour ago, Riv1404 said:

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.

 

Good, if they do that, they’ll be forced to finally get up their asses and do the Leaderboard themselves, instead of mooching off a site made by an unaffiliated party.

[ProfBambam55]

1 hour ago, djb5f said:

oh, we are probably on the same page lol...

I don't think we are but that's OK...

 

a unique idea I came up with in terms of maintaining some kind of regularity in numbers and no skewing involved is the following...forgive me if it sounds kind of crazy but I'd rather present a new idea and have it be stupid than none at all and just say "I disagree":

 

this site tracks what, about 4 trillion trophies?...and each trophy has a rarity value?...rank every trophy from 1 to 4 trillion by their rarity...trophies that have an equal rarity get the same score...the lowest rarity trophy gives you a score of 4 trillion and you work your way up the the most common which is given a value of 1...total these up for every trophy for every player and there you have it...a rarity leaderboard...divide everyone's score by like 100 000 000 and the numbers could be more easily read...

 

and what happens when stacks of %99 rarity games are added?...well, congrats, your rarest trophy just got more rare...the rarity hunters will be hoping more stacks like these are released just to get their numbers up...haha...it also solves the issue of new profiles with a handful of ultra rare trophies/games sitting at the top of the leaderboard...

 

edit: I do suspect the leadetboards would look much like they do now based on sheer volume of trophies earned by the top players but I'd be curious to see what the data looked like nonetheless...

Edited August 18, 2021 by ProfBambam55

[DaivRules]

9 minutes ago, ProfBambam55 said:

this site tracks what, about 4 trillion trophies?...and each trophy has a rarity value?...rank every trophy from 1 to 4 trillion by their rarity...trophies that have an equal rarity get the same score...the lowest rarity trophy gives you a score of 4 trillion and you work your way up the the most common which is given a value of 1...total these up for every trophy for every player and there you have it...a rarity leaderboard...divide everyone's score by like 100 000 000 and the numbers could be more easily read...

 

This is an amusing and hilariously appropriate application to something people are claiming they want in a rarity leaderboard.

 

I am also extremely curious what this would look like in reality.

[PS_Bowser]

40 minutes ago, ProfBambam55 said:

I don't think we are but that's OK...

 

a unique idea I came up with in terms of maintaining some kind of regularity in numbers and no skewing involved is the following...forgive me if it sounds kind of crazy but I'd rather present a new idea and have it be stupid than none at all and just say "I disagree":

 

this site tracks what, about 4 trillion trophies?...and each trophy has a rarity value?...rank every trophy from 1 to 4 trillion by their rarity...trophies that have an equal rarity get the same score...the lowest rarity trophy gives you a score of 4 trillion and you work your way up the the most common which is given a value of 1...total these up for every trophy for every player and there you have it...a rarity leaderboard...divide everyone's score by like 100 000 000 and the numbers could be more easily read...

 

and what happens when stacks of %99 rarity games are added?...well, congrats, your rarest trophy just got more rare...the rarity hunters will be hoping more stacks like these are released just to get their numbers up...haha...it also solves the issue of new profiles with a handful of ultra rare trophies/games sitting at the top of the leaderboard...

 

edit: I do suspect the leadetboards would look much like they do now based on sheer volume of trophies earned by the top players but I'd be curious to see what the data looked like nonetheless...

hahahaha I have to comment on this...based on that you would need a ridiculously high amount of easy trophies to equal a few ultra rares lol

 

say there's 4 trillion trophies each ranked 1 to 4 trillion points. Say someone gets the rarest one at 4 trillion points how many trophies would it take to equal 4 trillion points if they only got the easiest ones 1 points, 2 points, 3 points, etc.

 well just say the easiest 1,000,000 trophies would only get you to 500 billion points so they would need even more than that....sounds fair right?

Edited August 18, 2021 by PS_Bowser

[djb5f]

1 hour ago, ProfBambam55 said:

I don't think we are but that's OK...

 

a unique idea I came up with in terms of maintaining some kind of regularity in numbers and no skewing involved is the following...forgive me if it sounds kind of crazy but I'd rather present a new idea and have it be stupid than none at all and just say "I disagree":

 

this site tracks what, about 4 trillion trophies?...and each trophy has a rarity value?...rank every trophy from 1 to 4 trillion by their rarity...trophies that have an equal rarity get the same score...the lowest rarity trophy gives you a score of 4 trillion and you work your way up the the most common which is given a value of 1...total these up for every trophy for every player and there you have it...a rarity leaderboard...divide everyone's score by like 100 000 000 and the numbers could be more easily read...

 

and what happens when stacks of %99 rarity games are added?...well, congrats, your rarest trophy just got more rare...the rarity hunters will be hoping more stacks like these are released just to get their numbers up...haha...it also solves the issue of new profiles with a handful of ultra rare trophies/games sitting at the top of the leaderboard...

 

edit: I do suspect the leadetboards would look much like they do now based on sheer volume of trophies earned by the top players but I'd be curious to see what the data looked like nonetheless...

I think that would end up being similar to PSNTL in net result in how they do theirs.  Rarity leaderboard is very skewed (understandably so) to ultra rare trophies.  You could have 50,000 common trophies and it won’t move the needle much.  

 

fwiw, I am currently #30,817 on their standard leaderboard but #59 overall on their rarity leaderboard because I have a lot of sub 1% ultra rare trophies.

 

I think your formula would largely work.  Where it might break down is in the middle if two uncommon/common (whatever the mean or halfway point for trophy percentage is) would be equal to the most rare trophy in points.  That would give too much weight to the middle, which are still easy trophies but carry a lot of weight in volume.
 

The formula would have to be exponential in nature instead of linear to properly weight the ultra and very rares.

 

EDIT - of course another nuance is how DLC trophy rarity is handled here.  That fouls things up.  No good solution with those.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by djb5f

[PS_Bowser]

2 minutes ago, djb5f said:

I think that would end up being similar to PSNTL in net result in how they do theirs.  Rarity leaderboard is very skewed (understandably so) to ultra rare trophies.  You could have 50,000 common trophies and it won’t move the needle much.  

 

fwiw, I am currently #30,817 on their standard leaderboard but #59 overall on their rarity leaderboard because I have a lot of sub 1% ultra rare trophies.

 

I think your formula would largely work.

 

 

 

 

you could just base the leaderboard off the number of ultra rares people have if they are the same number then whoever has the highest next rarity "very rare" and so on would decide the rank....

[starcrunch061]

7 minutes ago, PS_Bowser said:

you could just base the leaderboard off the number of ultra rares people have…

Gotta stop you there. All that will do is precipitate 100,000,000 more threads about DLC rarity is faulty, and we really should use the number of base game owners, etc. etc.

 

 

[PS_Bowser]

1 hour ago, starcrunch061 said:

Gotta stop you there. All that will do is precipitate 100,000,000 more threads about DLC rarity is faulty, and we really should use the number of base game owners, etc. etc.

 

 

People just want different leaderboards so it benefits their rank "I don't play easy games so let's barely have them matter or not have them matter"

 

Besides rarity people may just want a completist leaderboard where extra points can be earned based on their completion percentage or the number of games done to 100%, etc.

Or just let people make custom leaderboards...

[GastNDorf]

Well 75 is still very high, thats 3/4 people able to get them...

 

I think a game that's not "easy" is more of an under 30%, and that's still 1 out of 3 people...

 

But really rarity isn't really a good indicator of difficulty.

 

My actual personal opinion: I don't care, I have done easy and hard plats, so I really don't...

[ProfBambam55]

5 hours ago, djb5f said:

I think that would end up being similar to PSNTL in net result in how they do theirs.  Rarity leaderboard is very skewed (understandably so)...

 

That would give too much weight to the middle, which are still easy trophies but carry a lot of weight in volume. The formula would have to be exponential in nature instead of linear to properly weight the ultra and very rares.

 

EDIT - of course another nuance is how DLC trophy rarity is handled here.  That fouls things up.  No good solution with those.

I really don't think it would resemble the psntl one...their calculations are very odd to me...I call it the cn tower effect...a person who is 6 feet tall who puts a microphone stand on their head that is 4 feet long isn't ten feet tall...they're still just 6...and even if they're considered very tall in peru or nigeria they're still only 6 feet tall...haha...I don't really find it understandable to randomly increase values just because sly decided to name a few categories and sony adopted them...and I think this is fundamentally where I disagree with what appears to be the mainstream...

 

I don't really have much to add to the dlc rarity debate other than to compare to what we are doing here...the issue with dlc rarity, if there is a consensus that it should represent attempts vs successes, is that we are lacking crucial data...we have no idea how many attempts were made (or owners as it's called) so we have to make an educated guess at a critical part of data...

 

with a rarity leaderboard, there is no data missing so there is no need to start extrapolating or inserting artificial data...I find it kind of odd that the same people who are very vocal against the current dlc rarity are the biggest advocates for a rarity leaderboard and that the argument seems to be "it's false data"...mathematically, artificially inflating concrete data makes less sense to me than using an average to fill in incomplete data but that's just me...

 

all that being said, I really believe much of this debate is just a battle of egos amongst people who care much more than I do about what others think of their profile or how much praise/criticism they receive for their collection...as such, I'm happy to let them decide how they would like data to be presented...still fun to talk about this stuff every now and then though...good brain exercise...

[DeepEyes7]

14 hours ago, Deadly_Ha_Ha said:

I say you just show the door to any common plat on this pretend LB unless husky saves us once again

 

Husky can make a LB?

Edited August 19, 2021 by DeepEyes7

[Arcesius]

6 hours ago, ProfBambam55 said:

with a rarity leaderboard, there is no data missing so there is no need to start extrapolating or inserting artificial data...I find it kind of odd that the same people who are very vocal against the current dlc rarity are the biggest advocates for a rarity leaderboard and that the argument seems to be "it's false data"...mathematically, artificially inflating concrete data makes less sense to me than using an average to fill in incomplete data but that's just me...

 

Sorry what? Those two things are not comparable. For a LB, you need to assign values to whatever you are measuring, so that you can rank people on them. It's not about "right statistics", it's about defining a measure that you want to use to rank competitors, and giving that measure some value. That has always been arbitrary, in every sport, in every hobby. 

 

The current trophy system does this by giving a specific value to a each trophy type.

Soccer does this by mapping a win to 3 points and a draw to 1 point.

A rarity LB would assign a value to a trophy rarity.

... 

 

There is nothing "factually correct" about a LB or how it is defined. It is arbitrary, and nobody is denying that. We just want a LB that ranks players based on the rarity of their trophies. Period. Let us define an arbitrary function and use it to rank players on an additional LB. The current system is equally arbitrary, but less interesting as well since you can never lose points you've earned. Something that would be the case on the proposed rarity LB. 

 

When it comes to DLC rarities.. well that's something that should be statistically correct. And it's not. And the way you and Sly came up with the idea of using the geometric mean, and how he "liked how the numbers look" shows that not a single second was spent trying to even find evidence that those numbers are close to the real ones. 

Moreover, it's not only about trying to determine the number of people that purchased the DLC. Many of us argue that whether or not you buy the DLC is irrelevant. DLC trophies are still part of the trophy list for the game and thus all base game owners should count to compute those rarities. No computations needed. 

 

But that is a discussion for another topic. Or rather, a discussion that has already been had too often. 

 

I didn't want to participate in this discussion, but I also don't like when our (my) arguments are misinterpreted, like they were here.  

 

 

 

Also, I find it funny that the topic was renamed in such a way that it already raises eyebrows when reading the title. No personal bias at all there ? There would not be any need for a new thread if the last one didn't get locked. 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Arcesius

[BrandedBerserk]

On 2021-08-17 at 6:03 AM, DrBloodmoney said:

 

I think you missed my point.

 

I don't disagree with the timeframe you laid out, I disagree that Sony switching corporate headquarters to a different office is the reason.

 

All the stuff you mentioned also happened shortly after David Bowie died...

 

I don't think his death was responsible though....

 

You must be forgetting It wouldn't be a true post from this guy if he didn't mention Sony moving to California, how triple a publishers are greedy twats that want to fuck you up the ass, the fact that he grew up gaming during the stone age or the glooming shadow that brings him misery known as Jim Ryan and his cronies. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by BrandedBerserk

[Deadly_Ha_Ha]

9 hours ago, DeepEyes7 said:

 

Husky can make a LB?

Oh I don't know, I'm just riffing on husky being the only one that's progressing this website

[TopGOSU_]

In the first place, the cause of the problem is the Sony problem, which changed the system, and I think it is a problem that can be changed if users complain.

[ProfBambam55]

9 hours ago, Arcesius said:

 

Sorry what? Those two things are not comparable. For a LB, you need to assign values to whatever you are measuring...

 

The current trophy system does this by giving a specific value to a each trophy type. Soccer does this by mapping a win to 3 points and a draw to 1 point...

 

There is nothing "factually correct" about a LB or how it is defined. It is arbitrary, and nobody is denying that. We just want a LB that ranks players based on the rarity of their trophies. Period. Let us define an arbitrary function and use it to rank players on an additional LB.

 

When it comes to DLC rarities.. well that's something that should be statistically correct. And it's not. And the way you and Sly came up with the idea of using the geometric mean, and how he "liked how the numbers look" shows that not a single second was spent trying to even find evidence that those numbers are close to the real ones. 

Moreover, it's not only about trying to determine the number of people that purchased the DLC. Many of us argue that whether or not you buy the DLC is irrelevant. DLC trophies are still part of the trophy list for the game and thus all base game owners should count to compute those rarities.

 

Also, I find it funny that the topic was renamed in such a way that it already raises eyebrows when reading the title. No personal bias at all there  There would not be any need for a new thread if the last one didn't get locked. 

I think we may actually agree on some things here but perhaps our general views are a bit different...yes, we need to assign values but those values already exist when it comes to rarity...each trophy already has a rarity %...there really isn't a need to exaggerate that value...collecting trophies also really isn't a competition like a sport...there are no winners or losers so there is no need to have an additional value like a win, loss, tie added to any stat...trophy hunting is not identical but much more like object collecting imo...whether it be cards, stamps, action figures, cars, etc...having a rare stamp, for example,  certainly does increase its value but having a very common one doesn't go into negative value...how the rarest stamp value is decided is beyond me as it's really not my area of expertise...how the rarest trophy is, is not...again, it's displayed beside every trophy in a % value...

 

a leaderboard to me is just a form of displaying stats...inevitably a competitive aspect is added when you display stats in a "who has the most/least (name your poison) format" and this competitiveness is one of the few things that makes trophy hunting similar to sport imo...I think if we are trying to create a chart of "who has the most valuable collection" with trophies it is going to be incredibly difficult just like it is with any form of collecting...I do think there needs to be a communal agreement on what is valuable and why but recognize that we certainly don't have that here or this type of topic would've ended long ago...it appears to me what you (I think) and others in favour of a rarity leaderboard are trying to do is separate a part of the community into what I see as "we have the most valuable collections" by exagerrating the value of your collection and degrading anyone else's that would threaten your position of what makes a trophy valuable...this is strange to me but if this is what people want then so be it...as I said before, I'm cool with a majority deciding parameters of whatever leaderboards they see fit (with sly having the final word of course...his site, his rules)...I'm also ok with disagreeing on what the parameters are or how they are applied...I think discussing/rationalizing/analyzing them is not only fun but necessary...

 

I think we agree that dlc rarity should be statistically correct...hopefully we can also agree that it is nearly impossible for us to do so with dlc trophies...there are a few things to look at that make this even more complicated...

 

if added dlc revoked a platinum trophy and completing that dlc reinstated it, then I would agree that dlc ownership and base game ownership should be one and the same for rarity calculations...

 

we also need to look at the definition of rare a bit...true rarity by definition is not the rarity % of a trophy...it actually is simply the lowest number of achievers of any trophy...the rarest stamp in the world is not rare because 1 000 out of 100 000 000 people have it...it's rare because there is only one...I think most of us would agree that this would be a highly uninteresting stat to display on a leaderboard...far more interesting is the concept of more rare = more effort...unfortunately this is incredibly subjective and it seems to be the main point preventing this discussion from going much further...and i think this representation is another point where we disagree...the rarity group seems to want rare to be proportionate to effort...I would've thought this group would've been the greatest advocates for attempts vs successes calculations since that is what they seem to be trying to highlight..."we attempted these incredibly skill-dependant trophies that are beyond most gamers and got them"...I don't see how just owning a game fits into this argument other than, once again, to exaggerate their efforts/collections...

 

a simple way I see it is if ownership is our metric for rarity like with most forms of collecting, then the lowest number of achievers for any single trophy should top a rarity leaderboard...if effort (which many seem to agree is rarity %) is our metric for rarity, then attempts vs successes makes the most sense...if I've understood discussions like these properly then most (including possibly yourself?) are in favour of the latter...I think it should also be stated at this point that I really do wish there was a way we could properly assess attempts vs successes and also ownership...it would make things a lot more fun and simple in terms of calculating and displaying data...

 

I can't control how sly analyzes and presents data and I think if you look back at the thread where geometric mean was discussed you'll see that I did make an effort to research, analyze, and present as much data as possible for the community...I'll also admit that I was far more aggressive in my earlier days of participating on the forums and I regret it...I'm doing my best to be more positive in my posts so apologies if I'm offending anyone with my opinions or observations...it is not my intention...

 

as far as thread titles and threads being locked, these fit more into the drama category imo than the math/logic/analysis one so I take little interest...perhaps just ask to have it renamed?...

Edited August 19, 2021 by ProfBambam55

[HusKy]

2 hours ago, Deadly_Ha_Ha said:

Oh I don't know, I'm just riffing on husky being the only one that's progressing this website

 

This is out of my hands. Only so much can be done with a simple browser script. ?

[dmland12]

1 hour ago, ProfBambam55 said:

I do think there needs to be a communal agreement on what is valuable and why but recognize that we certainly don't have that here or this type of topic would've ended long ago...it appears to me what you (I think) and others in favour of a rarity leaderboard are trying to do is separate a part of the community into what I see as "we have the most valuable collections" by exagerrating the value of your collection and degrading anyone else's that would threaten your position of what makes a trophy valuable

 

No, I just want more variety in leaderboards.  Right now we just have a leaderboard ranked by trophy xp and that's it.  If we had more than that, of course some people would prefer one over others etc, but I don't think there will be a consensus.  I really don't understand the whole degrading part or whatever.

 

Think about speedrun leaderboards.  For popular games there's one for any%, and then some others also depending on interest.  There will be people more interested in one or another but that's it.  They're not trying to figure out which one is the most important leaderboard ever or whatever nonsense.

[PS_Bowser]

33 minutes ago, HusKy said:

 

This is out of my hands. Only so much can be done with a simple browser script.

could just put the code needed for leaderboards on my site and just pull all the psn names synced on this site lol

[Deadly_Ha_Ha]

42 minutes ago, HusKy said:

 

This is out of my hands. Only so much can be done with a simple browser script.

Ah, well I have a smooth brain so I wasn't sure. You do more than enough already though 

[DeepEyes7]

1 hour ago, HusKy said:

 

This is out of my hands. Only so much can be done with a simple browser script.

 

Can you make another trophy tracker site with hookers and blackjack?

[Tsundokuist]

19 minutes ago, DeepEyes7 said:

 

Can you make another trophy tracker site with hookers and blackjack?

You want trophies from hookers? As in…

 

 Pimpin’

 

 Backdoor Entry

 

 “She stole my watch!”

[ProfBambam55]

1 hour ago, dmland12 said:

 

No, I just want more variety in leaderboards.  Right now we just have a leaderboard ranked by trophy xp and that's it.  If we had more than that, of course some people would prefer one over others etc, but I don't think there will be a consensus.  I really don't understand the whole degrading part or whatever.

 

Think about speedrun leaderboards.  For popular games there's one for any%, and then some others also depending on interest.  There will be people more interested in one or another but that's it.  They're not trying to figure out which one is the most important leaderboard ever or whatever nonsense.

I'm all for more leaderboards if that's what people want...I'm also quite interested in how they would be formulated...I do think there should be some form of consensus on how to formulate new leaderboards because it has the potential to make them more meaningful for a broader range of people...

 

the "degrading part" relates specifically to trophy rarity calculations and how they have been presented in previous discussions and on existing leaderboards...I just don't understand the need to inflate numbers beyond their existing value...the top speedrunners don't get 30 seconds off their speedrun time just because they are in the top 1%...their time is their record...why should it be any different for other types of leaderboard?...perhaps a better question is what makes rarity stats unique that they need to be artificially inflated?...why can't they just be calculated at face value like the xp leaderboard we have now or speedrun times and rankings?...

 

to say that speedrunners don't really care about which leaderboard is more important to me is a bit odd...I think they often do care very much how and where their times are presented and that there is a whole community regulating how fair their speedruns are and who gets recognition for what...after all, some pretty serious bragging rights are at stake...haha...there's also a common metric that seems to be consistent throughout all of the speedrun leaderboards that I've seen that is universal, time...i think it might benefit us to try and do the same thing with rarity...we do all have access to the same rarity %s...perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant?...

Edited August 19, 2021 by ProfBambam55

[dmland12]

7 minutes ago, ProfBambam55 said:

to say that speedrunners don't really care about which leaderboard is more important to me is a bit odd...I think they often do care very much how and where their times are presented and that there is a whole community regulating how fair their speedruns are and who gets recognition for what...after all, some pretty serious bragging rights are at stake...haha...there's also a common metric that seems to be consistent throughout all of the speedrun leaderboards that I've seen that is universal, time...perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant?...

 

I mean just that the Any% leaderboard isn't necessarily considered to be "better" than the 100% leaderboard or glitchless leaderboard or whatever.  There are people that are trying to get better at each, but there is not this general idea that one of them should be the correct leaderboard or that they are even trying to figure out what the correct way to play is.  They are just different ways of doing it.

 

 

10 minutes ago, ProfBambam55 said:

the "degrading part" relates specifically to trophy rarity calculations and how they have been presented in previous discussions and on existing leaderboards...I just don't understand the need to inflate numbers beyond their existing value...the top speedrunners don't get 30 seconds off their speedrun time just because they are in the top 1%...their time is their record...why should it be any different for other types of leaderboard?...perhaps a better question is what makes rarity stats unique that they need to be artificially inflated?...why can't they just be calculated at face value like the xp leaderboard we have now or speedrun times and rankings?...

 

Oh, it's because rarity could be looked at in different ways.  You could look at it as a percentage number from 0-100%.  But, you could also see it as a ratio.  50% could also be represented as 1 in 2 or 1:2.  10% is also 1:10 and 1% is 1:100.  It's this denominator that goes up rapidly and that's why I once just suggested a rarity calculation of 1/x-1.  But, people seem to think this is too severe, so almost every suggestion you see flattens this curve somewhat so that it's actually not as severe as this (1/x-1) would be.

 

 

[ProfBambam55]

26 minutes ago, dmland12 said:

I mean just that the Any% leaderboard isn't necessarily considered to be "better" than the 100% leaderboard or glitchless leaderboard or whatever.  There are people that are trying to get better at each, but there is not this general idea that one of them should be the correct leaderboard or that they are even trying to figure out what the correct way to play is.  They are just different ways of doing it.

 

Oh, it's because rarity could be looked at in different ways.  You could look at it as a percentage number from 0-100%.  But, you could also see it as a ratio.  50% could also be represented as 1 in 2 or 1:2.  10% is also 1:10 and 1% is 1:100.  It's this denominator that goes up rapidly and that's why I once just suggested a rarity calculation of 1/x-1.  But, people seem to think this is too severe, so almost every suggestion you see flattens this curve somewhat so that it's actually not as severe as this (1/x-1) would be.

 

 

I think we are in full agreement on your first point but I don't really understand what you've said about ratios...I don't think we can go beyond %0-%100 or an equivalent ratio without artificial boundaries nor do I see a reason to make such boundaries or curves to classify rarity properly...again, we have a rarity % for each individual trophy...why the need to go beyond that?...

 

with relation to the first point, I'll try to voice my viewpoint more simply... I think what I'm trying to do is see if we, as a community, can come up with a rarity board that would be as important to gamers as our xp one, similar to the main speedrun ones...if so, we could go from there and break down those into more specific niche (lack of a better term) ones, like the any% or glitchless ones for speedrunnera...it seems like we're trying to make an incredibly niche one before even attempting to make a general one by injecting a variety of random multipliers here and there with the simple objective of making trophies more rare than they actually are...imo an ideal leaderboard should be easily understandable by everyone, unless of course data is missing and we have to fill in the blanks...I don't think this is the case with rarity though...

 

forewarning : it's a beautiful day here and I'm sitting outside drinking beer and thinking about numbers...forgive me if my ability to rationalize or type coherently suffers...

Edited August 19, 2021 by ProfBambam55