deleted

[HellMoodCole]

deleted

Edited April 2 by HellMoodCole

[Milktastrophe]

So your solution is to make the spam games worth more and AAA games worth less? Because way more people play actual games than garbage.

 

For example Jumping Fries Turbo NA PS4 platinum is worth 0.00089 points, 12 times more than Cyberpunk 2077 PS4 platinum which is only worth 0.00007 points.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Milktastrophe

[DaivRules]

Considering there are very, very few “spam games” with more than 10,000 owners and they rarely pick up more than a couple thousand owners these days, this type of calculation would heavily favor them over more marketed, higher budget games. 
 

[NathanielJohn]

29 minutes ago, BigBossImBeamer said:

This means they are manipulable, arbitrary, and complicated to calculate.

 

They are no more arbitrary and complicated to calculate than the method you proposed. You mentioned an arbitrary 5% ultra rare cut-off for rarity trophy points, but most of the more recent rarity leaderboard formulas that have been proposed do not have arbitrary cut-offs like that -- they are smooth functions of the trophy's rarity percentage.

 

Regarding manipulable: what games are you considering where adding another 19 spam account non-achievers has any sort of significant effect on its trophies rarity percentages? This seems like a drastically smaller problem than the problem that lies at the core of the absolute rarity leaderboard idea: it's not actually a "rarity" leaderboard at all, but rather a "nicheness" leaderboard. Any popular game, no matter how hard, is going to be worth fewer points in your system than niche games will be worth.

 

Edit: I should add that there are actual proper statistical techniques for dealing with these rarity-versus-owners situations. Things like the Bayesian average or the Wilson upper bound. These quantities give you an estimate for the actual rarity of a trophy, taking into account that if there are just a few game owners then you trust the actually-reported rarity less than you do if there are lots of game owners.

Edited August 9, 2022 by NathanielJohn

[DrBloodmoney]

So... if I understand the maths correctly, looking at my own list...

 

...this:

 

 

...would be worth 53,107 times what this:

 

...is?

 

 

 

 

I mean, I really loved The Longest Road on Earth, and think it deserves more credit...

 

...but that may be giving a little too much credit.

 

 

 

 

 

I will say though - while I think this particular idea is a bit of a sledgehammer to a nail - I don't necessarily think some kind of incentive for folks to check out less well known or underplayed games is the worst idea in the world. 

 

It'll take someone smarter than me to figure out how though! ?

Edited August 9, 2022 by DrBloodmoney

[HusKy]

55 minutes ago, BigBossImBeamer said:

That's why I thought about whether this could be implemented on PSNP+.

 

Any leaderboards or other large scale statistics are not feasible with a browser script.

[Silver-I-Chariot]

Rarity rankings work well on psntrophyleaders (although their site has other issues). They don't award points for common trophies at all, which means spam games don't count. And looking at my own profile I think it's fairly accurate - my easy games are barely worth any points, my games that I worked hard to complete are worth a lot, so idk, whatever you thins is the problem it just works. And I honestly don't believe manipulating rarity would be as much of a problem as you imply, if at all. They also have a standard ranking, ranking by average completion, ranking by 100%, custom rankings by genre or franchise... 

There are a ton of fun leaderboards you could add for all different types of players. The only reason we don't have anything of that sort is because the developers of this site are not interested in adding new function. But the potential is certainly there and it could be done. 

[IntroPhenom]

I'm leaderbored of these discussions.

 

I'm leaderbored of these discussions.

[WiktorM101]

1 hour ago, DaivRules said:

Considering there are very, very few “spam games” with more than 10,000 owners and they rarely pick up more than a couple thousand owners these days, this type of calculation would heavily favor them over more marketed, higher budget games. 
 

Yea, posts sugesting solutions should come with random and extreme exaples so OP might find out it doesn't really work in a way they think it would.

Idea sounds good until you think that Super Meat Boy is worth less then Rogue Warrior Redux, Chess Ultra or Hotshot Racing (more then twice) and Twin Robots is worth more then Witcher 3 or Deus Ex. 

 

Maybe if we set minimum number of owners then we could sort out games that nobody played or nobody should want to play but then we still have AAA problem.

Edited August 9, 2022 by WiktorM101

[janzor88]

NathanielJohn and others have done the math and formulas for a rarity leaderboard multiple times over the years.

 

You are over-complicating things.

Relative rarity is way better for reasons stated already.

Trying to manipulate rarity will be insignificant in the big picture.

 

DaivRules argument in the other thread, that the server costs will explode is false as well.

It's just about using the already signed values for trophies and adding multiplication from the formula backend.

 

It's laughable how stupid the leaderboard have become the latest years with all this trash released.

We were many people who warned about this development years ago, but there is always some small minority yelling enough to keep status quo.

 

It's a joke that I have more ultra rare trophies than the top 3 people on the current leaderboard combined.

 

As another user already has proposed in the other thread (unfortunately I can't remember who):

Have different leaderboards that cater to different people. 

If some want to have an absoute leaderboard where they can chase ezpz trophies and everything else, let them.

But also let people compete for difficulty/rarity (yes, there is correlation) like speed running competitions are also segmented.

 

Unfortunately nothing will happen here, as these things have been proposed 100 times before.

Which is a huge shame, since the competing part for me and many others has completely vanished with all this shovelware 1-button click simulators.

[HellMoodCole]

deleted

Edited April 2 by HellMoodCole

[sweeping-lamp3]

Sounds interesting.  I think I would have to see it in action to make an informed opinion.

 

I've already seen several rarity leaderboards:
the experimental one on this site
the TrueTrophies score on True Trophies
the one on PSN Trophy Leaders
the one on PSN100 (I believe their rarity formula came from a post from the forums here)

 

I haven't seen one in ExoPhase or PST.org

You may want to approach PST.org with this idea.
I think they are just starting out their leaderboard system and may be looking into possible rarity formulas if they decide to add a rarity leaderboard in the future.

I'm not sure what is on their roadmap but I think they would be open to suggestions.
They also have the benefit at looking at other sites to see the pros/cons of other rarity systems/formulas used on other sites.

If it turns out well other sites might add that rarity formula into their sites.

Edited August 9, 2022 by sweeping-lamp3
typo

[Komrade_Dusty]

This is still a very relative measure. The platinum trophy for Darkest Dungeon was a massive slog. There are total of 1,060 people with the platinum on PSN Profiles. It was one of the toughest platinums I have. This would give the platinum a value of roughly 0.0001. There are 47,361 people with the game on PSN Profiles, so the 1,060 is 2.24% of players. Tropico 6 on PS5 is pretty easy for a management game. There are four people, myself included, who have the platinum. That would give it a value of 0.25. There are also 49 people with the game, so the platinum achievement rate is 8.16%. Is the Tropico 6 platinum worth thousands of times more on a leaderboard than Darkest Dungeon? No.

 

Searching "Breakthrough" on PSN Profiles also gives quite a few examples of games with fewer than 1,060 owners, which by definition would have to have a platinum of greater value than Darkest Dungeon. This doesn't solve anything. Relative values aren't perfect, but it's a clear step up from this.

[DeepEyes7]

Thanks for taking your time making this, but I think that going by total absolute achievers is not the way to go... 

[HellMoodCole]

deleted

Edited April 2 by HellMoodCole

[WiktorM101]

3 hours ago, BigBossImBeamer said:

Technically, you're right. But in the end, shovelware games and easy AAA games will both be worthless. AAA games with very hard trophies will always be worth more than any shovelware game though.

There is no such AAA game.

 

3 hours ago, BigBossImBeamer said:

Eventually, any trophy with over 1000 Achievers will be completely worthless.

And that's the problem. Look how many trophies under 100 achivers I have. No Mahjong should be worth more then Super Meat Boy in a system that supposed to reward hard trophies.

 

3 hours ago, BigBossImBeamer said:

Yes, you have calculated correctly. But of course, that would only reflect the present time. If you rank up because of this game, people will check your profile, see the game and play it too. Then the number would change very quickly. (assuming the game isn't hard)

Never gonna happen. Games like Bloodbourne are HUGE success. No Leaderboard rank gonna sell even 15% of that. 

 

3 hours ago, BigBossImBeamer said:

Imagine an unpopular but fast and easy game with 0 game owners. (optimal case) Now earn all trophies in it and earn the first trophy on 19 spam accounts and you will get a bunch of ultra rares on your main account, since the rarity is now at 5%. If everyone would do it that way with this game, nothing about the rarity would change. I only chose 5% because that is where ultra rare begins. You can also do this with any other number. If there are no hard cut offs in the calculation as you say, it would be even more profitable.

I don't belive that's a thing. You can link examples tho.

 

3 hours ago, BigBossImBeamer said:

Yes, with an absolute rarity leaderboard the focus would be on niche games. (Which would definitely be an improvement to the current focus.) However, these games would then quickly become less worth. A popular game with a really hard trophy in it wouldn't become less worth at all.

Any example besides Crypt of the Necrodancer? Like situations you are talking about don't exist and Leaderboard like that still would put EZPZ stackers on top. 

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, BigBossImBeamer said:

On the other hand, a rarity leaderboard would be ignored anyway, as long as it doesn't replace the current one.

Exists and is ignored, correct. Rarity Leaderboard

It's not even better, few places above me are guys stacking EZPZ lists with next to no UR trophies, but Leaderboard is numbers game.

With all examples given it's going to be numbers game so we can just pick even and predictable one

Edited August 9, 2022 by WiktorM101

[sephiroth4424]

Unpopular opinion: 

 

Common trophies give zero points

 

We all have them, no need for ribbons and other things. Just leaderboards where 50+% trophies don't give points

[MikeCheck--]

Would be neat to incorporate something new, but until then, I'll just continue playing what I love and focus on VR hunting since there isn't much to manipulate there. 

[djb5f]

4 hours ago, Silver-I-Chariot said:

Rarity rankings work well on psntrophyleaders (although their site has other issues). They don't award points for common trophies at all, which means spam games don't count. And looking at my own profile I think it's fairly accurate - my easy games are barely worth any points, my games that I worked hard to complete are worth a lot, so idk, whatever you thins is the problem it just works. And I honestly don't believe manipulating rarity would be as much of a problem as you imply, if at all. They also have a standard ranking, ranking by average completion, ranking by 100%, custom rankings by genre or franchise... 

There are a ton of fun leaderboards you could add for all different types of players. The only reason we don't have anything of that sort is because the developers of this site are not interested in adding new function. But the potential is certainly there and it could be done. 

I agree, their rarity leaderboard has always worked well.  Because of difficult sports and pinball games, I would always be in the Top 50-75 despite not an overwhelming amount of trophies 

 

Something similar would work here too.

[Jerry_Appleby]

I appreciate that you've actually used proper math for your calculations, but I think a more valuable way to calculate points would be something more of an inverse relationship to direct % of trophies, like dividing the rarity from 100 and using that to calculate the points. Not using the amount of owners at all because owners are not a good measure of difficulty especially when it comes to niche games.

 

What I mean to say is take whatever the rarity of your trophy is (call it "x"), and divide from 100. So your rarity score would be 100/x. 

 

Imagine a game with all trophies at 99%, then each trophy on the rarity leaderboard would be valued by calculating 100/99 = 1.01010101 points.

Whereas a game with a platinum at 2% rarity, that platinum would be worth 100/2 = 50 points. Or another platinum around 0.7% like Max Payne 3 for example would be worth 100/0.7 = 142.857 points. Not to mention that all the other trophies would be rated in the same manner, so looking at an EZPZ game with 15 trophies all around 99%, you'd be only getting 15 points from that game, whereas a game like Max Payne would get you somewhere in the thousands for points when you look at the entire list. The plat alone in that game would be worth more than 10x the latest EZPZ's entire list.

 

Thoughts:

OP mentioned alt accounts that could lower the rarity of a game. But in reality, how many people would actually load up 100+ alt accounts just to make a game look rarer? There are more gamers trying to unlock a trophy than people trying to artificially lower rarity with alts.

People seem to think that they can find an easier games with loads of UR trophies, but the beauty of something rarity related is that the more people that unlock a trophy, the less rare it gets! Meaning fewer points in the long run!

Playing a bunch of EZPZ games will still get you points, but when everything is above 99%, you're only gaining 1 point per trophy, whereas earning just 5 trophies under 30% is enough to outmatch some of the latest EZPZ games!

[giinha]

So, there's this Brazilian site that I've been a part of since its creation (2010), and on it we have a difficulty scoring system that isn't foolproof, but it works well. And look, we have a ranking of just that score.

 

To give you an idea, I'm going to take one of the top positions in our overall ranking. 2397 platinum, 3,201,795 points, but only 49,000 ADP points. In our difficulty ranking it doesn't even appear in the top 1000.
Now I will use myself as an example. Overall I'm at position 300, and going down. I have 301 platinum and 494,670 points. But I have 1,485,712 ADP points and I'm 16th in the difficulty ranking.

 

Again, this system is not perfect, but I believe it is one of the fairest.

If you're interested and this helps in something, I'll post here later the explanation and calculation of this system, since it's public information on this site.

[roxas21691]

I think people are overcomplicating this whole situation.

Making a leaderboard based on rarity is not a solution. For starters, while a ultra rare trophy might be indicative of a trophy that requires skill/time, it can also be a trophy from a very bad game or that requires insane amount of grinding (and 0 skill), and therefore, the average player just doesn't put effort into obtaining it. There's already a rarity leaderboard in this website that to some extent manages to achieve this.

 

The real (and easy) solution is to make a leaderboard where the trophy lists for games with a platinum rarity above a certain percentage (I would suggest 70-75%) are worth 0 points. The remaining trophy lists (with platinum rarity below 70-75%) will remain with the same amount of points they have now. As for games without platinum trophies, I guess this rule could also be applied, but instead of the platinum trophy, it would take in consideration the rarest trophy in the list. This would result in a leaderboard without any shovelware games.

I think this is the best option. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if some games are easier/shorter and others harder/longer, as long as people are actually playing and enjoying the games, and putting some effort into completing them (and not pressing X to get a platinum) the leaderaboard serve their purpose.

I would go as far as suggesting to call this leaderboard the "true leaderboard", and the current leaderboard with all the shovelware games the "Pay to win leaderboard"?

[willows_blessing]

This is the like 3rd thread on this topic in 2 days why cant you just accept that spam games exist and get over it why make thread after thread advocating for a rarity leader board? Acting like rarity means anything is pointless  

[DrBloodmoney]

13 minutes ago, sephiroth4424 said:

Unpopular opinion: 

 

Common trophies give zero points

 

We all have them, no need for ribbons and other things. Just leaderboards where 50+% trophies don't give points

I think the issue with this subject is that every opinion is an unpopular opinion ?

 

Forget 50% trophies… at this point, we’d be lucky to find a single opinion that garners 50% agreement ? ? 

[tonkie18]

23 minutes ago, sephiroth4424 said:

Unpopular opinion: 

 

Common trophies give zero points

 

We all have them, no need for ribbons and other things. Just leaderboards where 50+% trophies don't give points

Then people would go for rare/ultra and they would become common too ??‍♀️?