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

[dmland12]

1 minute ago, ProfBambam55 said:

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 glitchess 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...

 

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 suffers...

 

OK, well.  Think about this.  You ever notice that you can't tell much of a difference between the typical 50% trophy and the typical 45% trophy.  They basically seem very similar.

 

Now think about the typical 10% trophy, the typical 5% trophy and the typical 0.5% trophy.  There's a more noticeable difference there isn't there?

 

Let's look at the calculations and see if we can find it!

 

50% = 50/100 = 1:2

45% = 45/100 = 1:2.22

 

10% = 10/100 = 1:10

5% = 5/100 = 1:20

0.5% = 1/200 = 1:200

 

There it is.  Even though we moved 5% from 50% to 45% the ratio is still very similar.  Meanwhile, when we moved the same 5% from 10% to 5% it doubled (or halved).

 

So, what's going on?

 

Well, as I explained in the thread I linked, what we're really measuring here when we do this is how many people don't have the trophy for every person that does.  Interestingly, it also matches up better with most of our subjective experiences regarding rarity.  45% or 50% well, whatever it doesn't feel like there's any difference.  10% to 5% that's noticable and the lower you go the easier it is to feel the difference on average (I know there are exceptions etc).

 

They are just different ways of looking at rarity and most people (who are interested in rarity) have a tendency to think about it this way even if they can't exactly explain it like this.  That's why almost all of the suggestions ramp up faster than it seems to you like they should.

[ProfBambam55]

41 minutes ago, dmland12 said:

 

OK, well.  Think about this.  You ever notice that you can't tell much of a difference between the typical 50% trophy and the typical 45% trophy.  They basically seem very similar.

 

Now think about the typical 10% trophy, the typical 5% trophy and the typical 0.5% trophy.  There's a more noticeable difference there isn't there?

 

Let's look at the calculations and see if we can find it!

 

50% = 50/100 = 1:2

45% = 45/100 = 1:2.22

 

10% = 10/100 = 1:10

5% = 5/100 = 1:20

0.5% = 1/200 = 1:200

 

There it is.  Even though we moved 5% from 50% to 45% the ratio is still very similar.  Meanwhile, when we moved the same 5% from 10% to 5% it doubled (or halved).

 

So, what's going on?

 

Well, as I explained in the thread I linked, what we're really measuring here when we do this is how many people don't have the trophy for every person that does.  Interestingly, it also matches up better with most of our subjective experiences regarding rarity.  45% or 50% well, whatever it doesn't feel like there's any difference.  10% to 5% that's noticable and the lower you go the easier it is to feel the difference on average (I know there are exceptions etc).

 

They are just different ways of looking at rarity and most people (who are interested in rarity) have a tendency to think about it this way even if they can't exactly explain it like this.  That's why almost all of the suggestions ramp up faster than it seems to you like they should.

whether we convert rarity into fraction, ratio, percentage or any other equivalent, it's still the same number fundamentally...I'm not sure how this ties into artificially and/or randomly inflating data...whether you see a 1% trophy as 99% or 99:100 of people couldn't achieve it or 1% or 1:100 could, the value stays the same...am I missing something?...the trend I've seen and what I'm not really ok with is saying 1% = 1:10 000 just because a certain group thinks it should be more rare...for whatever reason, my brain has a hard time with this and I think that this is where my disagreement with current calculations begins...

Edited August 19, 2021 by ProfBambam55

[Gommes_]

On 17.8.2021 at 11:26 AM, HondaHoe said:

oh jeez not this again

 

there's a new thread like this literally every week now

 

Cause it gets worse pretty much every week

[DaivRules]

The only thing I'm convinced of when it comes to a rarity leaderboard is that having one isn't going to change anything. There will never be total consensus on the "right" rarity leaderboard. 

 

That's why I propose 5-10 rarity leaderboards that fulfill each small factions requests (adjusted values, straight up rarity conversion, logarithmic inverse, etc.). THEN when everyone has their own leaderboard that shows what they want "their" leaderboard to show, new threads will pop up explaining the flaw of the rarity leaderboards and propose new leaderboards that solve the problem and those should get made as well.

 

It would be nice to see an actual table that compares the spelled out different proposed leaderboards and each boards proposed stipulations in great detail. Then some formulas could be derived that would be easy enough to use to calculate peoples scores and maybe start giving some people an idea of where they would land in each proposal.

 

[DeepEyes7]

1 minute ago, DaivRules said:

The only thing I'm convinced of when it comes to a rarity leaderboard is that having one isn't going to change anything. There will never be total consensus on the "right" rarity leaderboard. 

 

That's why I propose 5-10 rarity leaderboards that fulfill each small factions requests (adjusted values, straight up rarity conversion, logarithmic inverse, etc.). THEN when everyone has their own leaderboard that shows what they want "their" leaderboard to show, new threads will pop up explaining the flaw of the rarity leaderboards and propose new leaderboards that solve the problem and those should get made as well.

 

It would be nice to see an actual table that compares the spelled out different proposed leaderboards and each boards proposed stipulations in great detail. Then some formulas could be derived that would be easy enough to use to calculate peoples scores and maybe start giving some people an idea of where they would land in each proposal.

 

 

Fair enough, but people won't do that much if the possibilities of seeing it implemented are practically non-existent, MMDE did a great work in past months trying to reach a formula for that rarity... BlindMango proposed the Ribbon System... And nothing happened, if real options proposed by the staff are dismissed then what are our chances?

[DaivRules]

7 minutes ago, DeepEyes7 said:

people won't do that much...

 

Yeah, I've come to realize that.

[DeepEyes7]

7 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

Yeah, I've come to realize that.

 

Don't know what are you implying with that, people here has proposed a lot of ideas, Husky has done a lot of things that the community has been asking for years... Why people will do more to be just wasted here?

[DaivRules]

12 minutes ago, DeepEyes7 said:

 

Don't know what are you implying with that, people here has proposed a lot of ideas, Husky has done a lot of things that the community has been asking for years... Why people will do more to be just wasted here?

People put ideas out but don’t try to think through the application. Ideas are a dime a dozen. People should think through the formula that would do what their idea is asking for. If people can get that far, like I said, it would be trivial to code up an online calculator to let people see how many points they would have using it. 
 

No waiting for Sly necessary to take those steps and then we can get past the endless ideological debates and move toward some output. 

[DeepEyes7]

2 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

People put ideas out but don’t try to think through the application. Ideas are a dime a dozen. People should think through the formula that would do what their idea is asking for. If people can get that far, like I said, it would be trivial to code up an online calculator to let people see how many points they would have using it. 
 

No waiting for Sly necessary to take those steps and then we can get past the endless ideological debates and move toward some output. 

 

What? Wasn't MMDE work good enough?

 

 

MMDE even did the math for some users that wrote in the thread

 

 

Sorry man but you are just justifying Sly with your answer, even if we reach a 100% consensus it won't be implemented.

[DaivRules]

1 minute ago, DeepEyes7 said:

 

What? Wasn't MMDE work good enough?

 

 

MMDE even did the math for some users that wrote in the thread

 

 

Sorry man but you are just justifying Sly with your answer, even if we reach a 100% consensus it won't be implemented.

Cool, I’ll take the one formula that MMDE has posted publicly for everyone to see and make an online calculator. What are the rest of the rarity formulas people think are the right solution. 
 

I suppose this thread is another suggestion: Same points as now, but any trophies with 75.00% PSNP rarity or above is 0 points. 
 

What else?

[DeepEyes7]

1 minute ago, DaivRules said:

Cool, I’ll take the one formula that MMDE has posted publicly for everyone to see and make an online calculator. What are the rest of the rarity formulas people think are the right solution. 
 

 

Haha, now the problem is that PSNP needs more formulas and trials to pick the best option to be implemented? So it was our fault all this time.... Shame on us.

[ProfBambam55]

18 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

What else?

could you add: anyone that has more rare trophies than me = 0, anyone who has less rare trophies than me = 0, anyone who has the same amount as me but hasn't played all the exact same games within the exact same time frame as me = -0, and give each of my rare trophies under 50% rarity a value of 10 000, please?...curious to see how that would look...

 

edit: forgot to add, anyone who doesn't like this post also gets 0...

Edited August 19, 2021 by ProfBambam55

[DaivRules]

9 minutes ago, ProfBambam55 said:

could you add: anyone that has more rare trophies than me = 0, anyone who has less rare trophies than me = 0, anyone who has the same amount as me but hasn't played all the exact same games within the exact same time frame as me = -0, and give each of my rare trophies under 50% rarity a value of 10 000, please?...curious to see how that would look...

 

edit: forgot to add, anyone who doesn't like this post also gets 0...

Yes, I’ll get started on figuring how to implement that request right away. Is that for all calculations for each variety of rarity leaderboard or any specific one?

[ProfBambam55]

18 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

Yes, I’ll get started on figuring how to implement that request right away. Is that for all calculations for each variety of rarity leaderboard or any specific one?

I was kind of hoping that it would merit its own leaderboard at the top of all the other rarity ones proposed...and would you be so kind as to add universe and galaxy ranks alongside world and country, please?...alien lives matter and I wouldn't want any confusion...plus I love seeing those 1s...

Edited August 19, 2021 by ProfBambam55

[Mr_Wright95]

Do I Personally Like the "Cheap" platinum trophies... No and I make the decision to avoid games that I would literally be buying for no other reason than a quick Plat.

 

Do I Think they diminish what it once meant to get a platinum... Yes I do.

 

But do these things Ultimately bother me: No they don't.

 

Comparison is the thief of Joy when it comes to most aspects of life. Play what you enjoy regardless of if that enjoyment is a 5 minute Platinum or a 100 Hour Platinum.

[AJ_Radio]

4 hours ago, DaivRules said:

The only thing I'm convinced of when it comes to a rarity leaderboard is that having one isn't going to change anything. There will never be total consensus on the "right" rarity leaderboard. 

 

That's why I propose 5-10 rarity leaderboards that fulfill each small factions requests (adjusted values, straight up rarity conversion, logarithmic inverse, etc.). THEN when everyone has their own leaderboard that shows what they want "their" leaderboard to show, new threads will pop up explaining the flaw of the rarity leaderboards and propose new leaderboards that solve the problem and those should get made as well.

 

It would be nice to see an actual table that compares the spelled out different proposed leaderboards and each boards proposed stipulations in great detail. Then some formulas could be derived that would be easy enough to use to calculate peoples scores and maybe start giving some people an idea of where they would land in each proposal.

 

 

I don't think they should be separate. I think there should be a single lone leaderboard that allows you to set filters. What games are under this rarity, what games are excluded, etc etc. Having multiple leaderboards in my opinion is just going to confuse people and separate themselves even more than they already have. Maybe if it they were laid out properly and neat, they could work. But with where PSNP has gone in recent times, highly doubtful.

 

The system can't be changed, because after all this is Sony and they are free to do what they want, regardless of what we think. But we can implement a proper working system for this website that would be convenient for a lot of people.

 

At least have a filter for the new games. I am sick and tired of seeing shovelware polluting the games section of this website. Every single day when I look at the latest games, at least half of them or more are shovelware crap. I'm sure new trophy hunters will look at that shovelware and go "Hey, I ought to this try this". Before they know it they are addicted to trophies.

 

It's a predatory business model. If we cannot blame the players, we have to blame the system and standards in place. Both have gotten progressively worse as time goes on.

[Meikoro]

 

Not much to say about this, but i only miss Custom Leaderboards like on Playstationtrophies or PSntrophyleaders.

Either Way automaitc would not work well, because some of the Genre's for Games are simply false. So it need to be manual Updated from a Leader of the Leaderboard. Like the Custom LB Events on PSNTL for Example. But we don't see something here anytime soon. Same goes for a Rarity LB. Nothing Wrong about that too.

[AJ_Radio]

2 minutes ago, Meikoro said:

 

Not much to say about this, but i only miss Custom Leaderboards like on Playstationtrophies or PSntrophyleaders.

Either Way automaitc would not work well, because some of the Genre's for Games are simply false. So it need to be manual Updated from a Leader of the Leaderboard. Like the Custom LB Events on PSNTL for Example. But we don't see something here anytime soon. Same goes for a Rarity LB. Nothing Wrong about that too.

 

PSNTrophyLeaders is completely skewed in favor of the site owner. Trophies under 1 percent rarity are 'Prestige' trophies, which are worth a lot more points than the trophies that lie above 1 percent.

 

I wouldn't mind the average rarity statistic brought back to the main page of a profile. It won't be brought back unfortunately.

[Meikoro]

12 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

PSNTrophyLeaders is completely skewed in favor of the site owner. Trophies under 1 percent rarity are 'Prestige' trophies, which are worth a lot more points than the trophies that lie above 1 percent.

 

I wouldn't mind the average rarity statistic brought back to the main page of a profile. It won't be brought back unfortunately.

 

Right. I was not saying the Example for the Rarity they use i mean for the Custom Leaderboards. Its a shame they only avaible for Premium Members. Its also not good Sorted there.

But it works. I prefer the Manual Forum Version of Playstationtrophies all the Way.

[DaivRules]

29 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

At least have a filter for the new games.

Which new games specifically? What data points should define the games you’re talking about, specifically? 
 

31 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

I think there should be a single lone leaderboard that allows you to set filters. What games are under this rarity, what games are excluded, etc etc.

So a rarity leaderboard that has all the same trophy points that lets someone just pick whatever percentage PSNP rarity trophies they want and anything that rarity or less rare count as no points? 
 

And a filter that lets you choose games at an individual level and eliminate them from counting on that rarity leaderboard?

 

 

I’m also making a note of dmlamd12’s leaderboard suggestion that isn’t exactly a rarity leaderboard, more like a Minimum Playtime Leaderboard:

 

https://forum.psnprofiles.com/topic/113083-its-about-time-a-fix-for-the-leaderboard-that-doesnt-involve-rarity/

 

I’ll have to think on how to logically approach that one and what the right value range for X minutes is…

 

[AJ_Radio]

9 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

Which new games specifically? What data points should define the games you’re talking about, specifically?

 

No particular game or genre, but a filter for the new trophy lists sections. It gets aggravating to sort through all the garbage, and I know I'm not the only one annoyed with it.

 

10 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

So a rarity leaderboard that has all the same trophy points that lets someone just pick whatever percentage PSNP rarity trophies they want and anything that rarity or less rare count as no points? 
 

And a filter that lets you choose games at an individual level and eliminate them from counting on that rarity leaderboard?

 

I never said those things. One, or two leaderboards that fulfill adjusted values and logarithmic inverse, the same requests you already mentioned in your previous comment.

[steel6burgh]

We need rarity leaderboard for one simple thing and that is to eliminate these garbage games from the equation.  it has nothing to do with personally wanting to be atop a leaderboard myself or anything else but more or less to correct a flaw in the current system.  This idea we all want our own version of a rarity leaderboard for our own selfish reasons is false.  Anybody with about $5000 and 3 years free time could be atop the current leaderboard.  5 years ago when i started trophy hunting had i wanted to be on top of the current leaderboard I feel easily i could have.  People wanting a rarity leaderboard are not the ones looking for a easy way to the top.  Quite frankly a rarity board would be 1000x more time consuming and difficult than the current formula.  People think these guys spend all their time gaming at the top now.  shit you can get 5 platinums in about 2 hours.  Go look these guys are only playing a few hours a day they are playing less than the rest of us.  I really feel I would rank about the same place on either leaderboard, so why do i care?   Because i enjoy the hobby and would like to see it made better, plain and simple.

Edited August 20, 2021 by steel6burgh

[Arcesius]

 

Quote

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...

 

Have you had a look at my profile? I don't have much of anything. I wouldn't rank highly on any leaderboard whatsoever, and I'm not interested in competing on any leaderboard either. What MY personal motivation for the addition of a rarity leaderboard is actually ties to your next point: 

 

 

Quote

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...

 

This. As things are now, rarity does not imply effort, or skill-dependency, or anything like that. And as you point out, assigning "effort values" or whatever to games / trophies is impossible due to the subjective nature of the matter. 

 

However, and this is personally what I hope a rarity LB would achieve.... Easy / Low-effort rare games would become less and less rare over time as more people go for their trophies (for their low rarity), while really difficult games, or games that at least require a lot of effort, would keep their rarity or even get a lower one over time as more people give up on them. Now, I think it would take a long time for rarities to move in such a way that we can finally say rarity ~ effort, but I believe that a rarity leaderboard might move things in that direction. 

 

 

Quote

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...

 

Hey I'm not giving you any blame whatsoever. You proposed something that Sly implemented. He is the only one responsible for how things are computed. I don't agree with how it's done, many do. 

 

But no, I have read through the entire original thread and there is no research. There are a couple of examples presented with the new calculations that "look good" or "make sense". Nothing is presented - unless I missed it - that shows that the numbers computed are close to actual numbers, and I know that this would be a difficult thing to prove, of course.

 

But again, there are still different viewpoints here. Even if we knew exactly how many base game owners have purchased which DLC, there are still arguments to be made (and have been made) as for why the DLC rarities should still be computed based on all base game owners. 

 

 

P.S. I was also out drinking beer, thus my late response ?

Edited August 20, 2021 by Arcesius

[ProfBambam55]

6 hours ago, Arcesius said:

Nothing is presented - unless I missed it - that shows that the numbers computed are close to actual numbers, and I know that this would be a difficult thing to prove, of course...

no, I haven't looked at your profile...might sound weird but I rarely ever check other people's profiles or even my own for that matter other than to see trophies for a game I'm currently working on alongside using a guide...the most common thing that brings me to a person's profile is to see if they have gta iv completed and to offer my assistance with the mp part of it...I really don't know much about games so it has a tendency to make profiles uninteresting...kind of like popping the hood of my car...i don't know much about cars and I'm not really sure what I'm looking at so I find it uninteresting even though to some it might be fascinating...

 

as far as more effort = more rare...I think this is an important perspective to bring to a rarity leaderboard discussion but I also think we need to be careful in not going too far in one direction or another because we might miss an opportunity to make stats relevant to a broader audience...there are a few debatable examples that I can think of where personally, I feel this has been the case...

 

the first is the psntl website...I don't know how well you know the site...i've only visited it a handful of times so I'm no expert...it doesn't seem to have much in the way of forums, boosting groups, guides/walkthroughs or anything, for that matter, other than stats and leaderboards...they have so many leaderboards and the calculations within them are so odd that, to me, it almost seems like a boatload of  meaningless data...this is not an attempt at crapping on their site and I'm not saying these numbers are not very relevant to certain people...it's more that I find them all overly complex and too niche, and I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who tends to enjoy analyzing numbers...I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't understand them other than to see their current ranking on a given chart...5th here, 1000th there, 20 000th there...I think it's a good example of what happens when there's too much data presented that tries to cater to too many niche groups of hunters and not the community in general...it's quite possible that was the whole point in creating their website and that's great...for me it yielded a "I don't belong here"...

 

an example of where I find data got kind of messed up and less meaningful by poor representation are the old vs new psn trophy levels...we used to have double digit levels and the way they were broken down kind of made sense to me...I think I was at a point where roughly 10 %100 games would increase my level...it was relatively easy to see where my friends were at and how we compared to each other...when sony switched to triple digit levels and changed the level intervals it became so confusing and much more meaningless imo...now it seems like 1 %100 game earns me multiple levels...I'm dozens of levels away from my friends even though we have similar profiles... I think I'm about halfway to 999 even though I have way fewer, like tens of thousands fewer, trophies than that max...it's quite possible that some people find this stat more relevant since the change but I wouldn't be surprised if most don't...I'd suspect that sony was trying to boost people with fewer trophies levels' and give more reward in hopes of turning more people onto trophies...if it succeeded then great...it's quite possible that the average gamer saw the old stat much like I do the psntl web site, too niche and not overly meaningful,  and this was an attempt to correct that...I see very few threads complaining about it here so I can only assume I'm a minority on this...

 

yes, the above paragraphs are my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt...what I'm trying to demonstrate is that we should be careful in how we present our data...I think one of the things that draws me to this web site over others is that traditionally, sly has been great at finding a middle ground in what the community wants and presenting it in a way that is both simple to understand and has a sort of "genuine sony" feel to it despite having no affiliation...I also feel that what we discuss as members impacts the site directly regardless of who we are...I'm almost certain our leaderboards are taken the most seriously by the broadest range of gamers and that we should strive to keep it that way...

 

drastic change of thought: I'm OK with the divisiveness in the community...I think it's necessary in implementing changes carefully...it might sound odd but the more the community is split evenly, the more I feel we've succeeded in finding a balance in what people want and catered to a broader range of people...it also allows us to zoom in more clearly on what might be a potential middle ground when opinions are polarized...a good example of this is dlc rarity...

 

you are absolutely correct in saying that we have no idea how any of the calculations we proposed would compare to actual ownership or attempts vs success data...I'm not sure how long you've been around the forums but we previously tried out two methods of displaying dlc rarity, one based on the concept of ownership and the other, that of attempts vs successes...there was such an overwhelming objection to both that an attempt to find a middle ground was made...unfortunately, we don't have the data necessary to make completely accurate calculations so the best we could do at the time (I'm not sure if new data exists somewhere) was calculate and compare everyone's ideas to see if a middle ground could be found...not a single one of them was correct so unfortunately no matter what we use will be subject to criticism and anyone could say "this makes no sense" and be right about it...without proper data I think the best we could do was come up with a "this makes the most sense" stat without stepping on too many people's toes...I have no idea whether or not we succeeded...I think we did, you think we didn't, and that's all good...if new data was presented that seemed to cater to our middle ground better, I'd be all for it...

 

a long rant to present a simple viewpoint...I think this site caters to a huge audience...so big that to manifest everyone's ideas would ruin it's beauty: presenting data in a way that is simple to understand but also feels relevant to as many people as possible while maintaining that "more official than sony" feel...there are a lot of very strong viewpoints to consider when making change and not that many suggestions aimed at pleasing a middle ground imo so it makes progress a little slower...

 

I think everyone agrees that a rarity leaderboard is the next level change we'd love to see...I care very little about how these stats affect my profile but do feel the need to play devil's advocate a bit when I see potential flaws with how we implement big changes like this one...not sure if it's just my ego but I'm actually trying to help the community by challenging both extremes' ideas a bit...which brings us to my final viewpoint...

 

to all the rarity hunters out there who want acknowledgment for their trophy collections...look, you guys are awesome and anyone who cares about rarity knows who you are and likely looks up to you...whether we give you a 1000 point multiplier or 1 000 000 one your stats and skills are super impressive...creating leaderboards just so you guys can place higher to me seems kind of fake and would make your accomplishments less impressive since it could be argued that you only placed highly because of the random multipliers...I truly believe that displaying your stats fairly in a way that most could glance at and understand (like our xp leaderboard) does you the most justice...this is the mindset I bring to this discussion and I admit i have no idea how to manifest this data properly...I do know enough about numbers to say that comparing %s is an incredibly difficult task when also trying to consider the large variety in volumes that come with them...I hope to see more ideas presented and critiqued so that we can come up with a solid middle ground that pleases the most people possible...if we made it relevant, we might even see some of the xp hunters or more casual gamers shift their focus to rarity...end rant...haha...

 

tl:dr...fantastic weather + alcohol with friends/family + stimulating conversation = awesomeness...

Edited August 20, 2021 by ProfBambam55

[DaivRules]

37 minutes ago, ProfBambam55 said:

unfortunately, we don't have the data necessary to make completely accurate calculations so the best we could do at the time (I'm not sure if new data exists somewhere) was calculate and compare everyone's ideas to see if a middle ground could be found...not a single one of them was correct so unfortunately no matter what we use will be subject to criticism and anyone could say "this makes no sense" and be right about it...without proper data I think the best we could do was come up with a "this makes the most sense" stat without stepping on too many people's toes

 

This gave me an idea for another leaderboard: DLC counts for points for percentage completion, but displays no rarity at all and wouldn't count for rarity points. Since no one has the correct owner data for DLC, assigning it any rarity value will always be flawed (some more, some less) and ignoring a rarity value for DLC might make for some interesting outcomes.