deleted

[Tsundokuist]

Just use one of the sites with a rarity leaderboard?

 

I don’t care about the leaderboards myself, nor am I actually registered for the site below, but just looking up my profile on it the numbers seem to roughly tally (my “Standard” rank here is 217k vs. 212k there).

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Tsundokuist
Corrected Image Size... Turns out iPhone screenshot resolutions are insane

[Camokidd87]

I don't feel like reading all 8 million comments but isnt there already a rarity leaderboard on here?

 

https://psnprofiles.com/leaderboard/rarity

[AJ_-_808]

15 minutes ago, Camokidd87 said:

I don't feel like reading all 8 million comments but isnt there already a rarity leaderboard on here?

 

https://psnprofiles.com/leaderboard/rarity

It's broken 

[Nebnit]

On 2022. 08. 21. at 5:23 AM, DeepEyes7 said:

One of the usual arguments of people against the rarity LB is "Some games like the ones that had been free sometime (via PSN+ or any other way) has fake stats because a lot of people try them and never come back, so the rarities are fake", that is what I call a fake UR, I'm just trying to explain that this "easy" UR's will be the first ones to lose that rank because will be the first ones targeted by people that want to climb of that LB (I even remember one prominent trophy hunter from the Top10 saying that he could fill his list of URs if he wanted just going for those "free" games)

 

Those games may still be difficult.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Nebnit

[steel6burgh]

when discussing a rarity leaderboard people get so hung up on two things.  1st people seem to think it has to be perfect.  The current system which awards shovelware games with the same gamer score as a game like super meat boy is far from perfect so this notion a revised leaderboard has to be perfection is crazy.  anything almost would be an improvement,

 

2nd people think it's about getting Ultra Rare trophies that is the big focus point.  It's really not, its about getting back to having quality games count toward the leaderboard and eliminating shovelware from the equation.  It's about limiting, or in my opinion, eliminating the score on 75% plus rarity trophies that pop 10 golds for holding down the x button for 3 minutes or less.  

 

 

[DeepEyes7]

25 minutes ago, steel6burgh said:

2nd people think it's about getting Ultra Rare trophies that is the big focus point.  It's really not, its about getting back to having quality games count toward the leaderboard and eliminating shovelware from the equation.  It's about limiting, or in my opinion, eliminating the score on 75% plus rarity trophies that pop 10 golds for holding down the x button for 3 minutes or less.  

 

 

Maybe that idea came from some of the first ideas of the rarity leaderboard where only the UR trophies counts, but those were better times where only Hannah Montana and Terminator Salvation were easy, nowadays as you said everything that clean a little this mess is worth it.

[Mellenthin]

On 22/08/2022 at 0:09 AM, DrBloodmoney said:

I don’t need to take your word for it - I know that. That’s kinda my point…

 

Rarity means very little in terms of the quality of games  - and, as you so eloquently put it… “Anybody with the slightest taste in proper games” knows that.

 

Not sure how you get to “unfounded”, given that you are basically saying the exact same thing I did 

 

I'm very sorry I didn't notice your reply until now. I don't have any notifications turned on, that's why.

 

Since I'm kind of plastered, I don't really recall what the discussion was about. Going out on a limb, I think it had something to do with the connection about quality games and rarity in general.

 

I believe you had some kind of weak punchline that a game like Elden Ring wouldn't be taken into account on a rarity leaderboard.

 

However, that's exactly how such a leaderboard works. It would work entirely by rarity, nothing else matters. Whether it's a good or bad game is beyond the point.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. It's perfectly plausible that I'm taking it out of my ass by now.?

Edited September 3, 2022 by Mellenthin

[DrBloodmoney]

3 minutes ago, Mellenthin said:

 

I'm very sorry I didn't notice your reply until now. I don't have any notifications turned on, that's why.

 

Since I'm kind of plastered, I don't really recall what the discussion was about. Going out on a limb, I think it had something to do about the connection about quality games and rarity in general.

 

I believe you had some kind of weak punchline that a game like Elden Ring wouldn't be taken into account on a rarity leaderboard.

 

However, that's exactly how such a leaderboard works. It would work entirely by rarity, nothing else matters. Whether it's a good or bad game is beyond the point.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. It's perfectly plausible that I'm taking it out of my ass by now.?

 

Ha - I had to look back to even see what the discussion was! ?

 

Yeah - we're talking about the same things, but I think the issue is more the fundamental basis of the argument itself.

 

I'm not saying a rarity leaderboard should account for the quality of games - a rarity leaderboard, as you say, should only count rarity.

 

My point (which, looking back, I think I did a poor job of articulating, and got kinda side-tracked!) was that the reason I don't like the whole idea of rarity leaderboards generally, is precisely because they shouldn't...

... that adding another reason for people to care more about the stats around a game, rather than the quality of that game or the fun they would have playing it, isn't something I love the idea of personally. 

 

 

 

[aarnettbraun]

On 8/9/2022 at 8:56 PM, MonaSaxPayne said:

 

I disagree with this synopsis

 

leaderboards have ALWAYS been about who has the most time and money to play games. otherwise we would've all been Hakoom. 

 

easy trophy games have existed since inception: frogger, spare parts, Hannah Montana, terminator salvation, megamind, detuned, linger in shadows, magus, countless VNs and Disney games etc.  granted, they were not as prolific as the huge influx of $2/1 minute plats like we have now. but the basic principle never changed

 

trophies have been around now for 14 years. its obvious that back in the day a profile that had, say 50 plats, was really impressive. even without all these newer spam games, do u really think 50 plats in 2022 would have the same amount of prestige? no. a lot of time has passed. once about a time 100 platinums used to be a rare sight. now its the norm

 

if u are a competitive person, u do what u have to do to stay on top. 99% of the ppl who whine about spam games aren't anywhere close to being on the top of the leaderboards anyway, and thats even without the spam games. why can't ppl just concentrate on their own profile/games and stop grieving over what other ppl play?

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, people are trying to overcome a sense of inferiority. With superiority complexes, they often boast about themselves and belittle other people (which is a reoccurring theme amongst certain members on PSNProfiles' forums). People, after starting an argument with me about the same subject (i.e. rarity of trophies), have even viewed my profile with the intent to criticize the number of trophies which are rare rather than any interest being piqued in the profile itself. They have the tendency to be braggadocious by nature.

[Jerry_Appleby]

8 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

was that the reason I don't like the whole idea of rarity leaderboards generally, is precisely because they shouldn't...

... that adding another reason for people to care more about the stats around a game, rather than the quality of that game or the fun they would have playing it, isn't something I love the idea of personally. 

I find this statement kinda ironic considering that people are playing crap for trophies to pad their stats in the first place. ?

[AJ_Radio]

On 8/21/2022 at 8:28 AM, iriihutoR84 said:

Every single leaderboard has a competitive aspect to it or it serves no purpose. The only way to be competitive on the PSNP leaderboard is to buy The Jumping Burrito's 8 stacks and the Turbo version's 8 stacks. It really is that bad when anyone can earn probably 40 platinum trophies (maybe more at this point?) every week by essentially holding down a button. This means that the PSNP leaderboard is completely useless as a competitive gaming leaderboard. You simply cannot compete on this competitive gaming leaderboard unless you buy non-games with jumping food, Animals + Letters and those new ones with a car moving right to left.

 

I'd personally like to see two more leaderboards in addition to today's. One "Adjusted" that just sorts out the very worst of the paid plats by not counting games with above XX% completion and another one that highly rewards rarer trophies. That would give more people a chance to have fun with the competitive aspect of trophy hunting. Today's leaderboard is only for "fans of" Jumping Food, Jumping Umps and general spamming of buttons. It only rewards developers with no interest in making enjoyable games and punishes anyone who wants to compete by forcing them to buy non-games.

 

And yes, there are flaws and possibilities to exploit any system that doesn't count everything as "1 = 1" but it cannot become worse than what we have today. 

 

The thing is this wasn't so much the case back in 2015 - 2017. I followed a YouTuber back in 2016 who often listed some of the easiest platinums to get in 2016. Even Orc Slayer, which is hands down the WORST game I've played on my profile, still took around a couple hours to finish. Most of your easy platinums took around a hour to two hours.

 

Nowadays the number of easy platinums has exponentially increased and therefore I think the leaderboards is a completely pointless endeavor. I'm not insulting people who are still competing, because as far as I'm concerned they can do what they want. But it's definitely nowhere near as interesting as it used to be. As somebody who used to care, I would definitely like to see at least an alternate leaderboard of sorts, something like what PSN Trophy Leaders has although I don't feel it's a great website.

 

What we have now is utter garbage.

 

On 8/21/2022 at 9:21 AM, Mellenthin said:

If I'm going to explain to you the satisfaction of earning UR's and you seriously don't understand the concept, that will have to be in another topic I'm afraid.

 

Why effort, you ask? Perhaps it's because if there's a single thing that makes everything tick, it's due to effort. Nothing is accomplished without it, and because how life is set up, for the same reason it's precisely why people in general loath free-loaders and parasites in society.

 

The leaderboards have degenerated to the extent that the top positions now belong to people whom represent the absolute bottom of the barrel kind of dregs. At least try and understand that.

 

Also try and come to the conclusion that most people who still have a care for the leaderboards do not want to have anything to do with the current situation.

 

Your last paragraph is unfounded, by the way. Anybody with the slightest taste in proper games can still differentiate between a quick UR and your typical FromSoftware masterpiece - you can take my word for it.?

 

I couldn't of said this any better myself. You get a tip of the hat from me.

[steel6burgh]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Appleby said:

I find this statement kinda ironic considering that people are playing crap for trophies to pad their stats in the first place. 

It's a bit on the contradictory side.  Of course he doesn't care about playing either leaderboard type from his own perspective so really it's not as contradictory as it may seem.  Regardless if you have no interest in either then it makes me wonder why engage in this particular debate in the 1st place?  

 

One thing i can assure you of is you will come across more quality games UR hunting then playing the jumping food games. If quality game play was the aim, I think it would be clear what side of the debate to come down on.

Edited September 4, 2022 by steel6burgh

[DrBloodmoney]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Appleby said:

I find this statement kinda ironic considering that people are playing crap for trophies to pad their stats in the first place. 

 

2 hours ago, steel6burgh said:

It's a bit on the contradictory side.  Of course he doesn't care about playing either leaderboard type from his own perspective so really it's not as contradictory as it may seem.  Regardless if you have no interest in either then it makes me wonder why engage in this particular debate in the 1st place?  

I understand, lads, but to be honest, what Jerry says is kind of the reason I do comment on these threads.

 

A lot of the time, I notice that folks arguing against things like Rarity Leaderboards have their opinions dismissed outright, as simple self-preservation or bad-faith, because they have those “insta-plat” Llama P / Turkey Run / My Mayo type games all over their profiles.

 

I don’t really have much in the way of those kind of games though, and by looking on other sites, I know that on virtually any form of Rarity Leaderboard I would likely rank at least a bit higher than I do on the main one.

 

As such, I like to at least make it clear than not everyone who would statistically benefit from a Rarity Leaderboard is in favour of one…

…and not everyone arguing against one is doing so for selfish or self-preservationist reasons.

 

Folks don’t have to agree with my opinions, of course, (and they frequently don’t! ?) - but they can’t simply dismiss them or rationalise them away as bad-faith.
 

[Rally-Vincent---]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Appleby said:

I find this statement kinda ironic considering that people are playing crap for trophies to pad their stats in the first place. ?

 

It's not so different from playing any game for trophies (and not for playing the game) regardless of the quality of the game. Getting guides before starting the game because there could be a missable trophy (RNG beware one'd have to give a fun game another go), not playing games that have a bugged trophy or no platinum, playing a game because it has UR trophies (and not because, you know, it's a fun game) - the mindset is pretty much the same.

 

For me who cares about the games and at some point decides if it's enough fun to keep playing and get the Platinum or if it's a shit game and drop it, all this constantly repeated riff-raff about UR vs. EZPZ and the "need" for a vanity leaderboard - I'm sorry, rarity leaderboard, my mistake - is more annoying than the trophy generator "games" themselves. At least, the point collectors do their own thing, while some (not all) of the others openly and intentionally belittle and demean others who share their special segment of this hobby.

 

 

[Mellenthin]

14 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

My point (which, looking back, I think I did a poor job of articulating, and got kinda side-tracked!) was that the reason I don't like the whole idea of rarity leaderboards generally, is precisely because they shouldn't...

... that adding another reason for people to care more about the stats around a game, rather than the quality of that game or the fun they would have playing it, isn't something I love the idea of personally. 

 

While I'm partly on your side of the argument here, I also think we're moraly way beyond the point of denying one group their leaderboard whilst allowing another theirs.

 

Even if somebody would feel so strongly about the well-being of other people that they would want to spare them the agony of bad URs, then the logical conclusion of that very argument would be to immediately dismantle the current leaderboard as it's evidently detrimental to people, and thus needs to be done away with.

 

Your argument sounds caring at first glance, yet at the end of the day you still have the unsolved issue of having the current leaderboard up and running as is. If this is about morality, then there's definitely no room for either leaderboards - that's my take on it, anyway.?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[steel6burgh]

5 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

As such, I like to at least make it clear than not everyone who would statistically benefit from a Rarity Leaderboard is in favour of one…

…and not everyone arguing against one is doing so for selfish or self-preservationist reasons.

I see, so by engaging in this discussion you legitimize the people who, by appearance, would have a vested or selfish interest in stating their case for or against a rarity leaderboard.  Seems like a lot of effort.  Many of them probably are doing it for selfish reasons so just be careful of that, wouldn't want you putting your rep on the line for a self preservationist.

 

Selfishness is a basic instinctual survival instinct we all demonstrate from time to time.

[starcrunch061]

I’ve tended to be against rarity leaderboards…and this one is no different. Actually, it seems worse in many ways than previously mooted possibilities.

 

Of course, it’s all academic at this point, but rewarding people for playing games with a small number of achievers seems to reward people for playing 10 stacks of The Jumping Enchilada. Doesn’t the current leaderboard already do enough of that?

[DrBloodmoney]

39 minutes ago, steel6burgh said:

I see, so by engaging in this discussion you legitimize the people who, by appearance, would have a vested or selfish interest in stating their case for or against a rarity leaderboard.  Seems like a lot of effort.  Many of them probably are doing it for selfish reasons so just be careful of that, wouldn't want you putting your rep on the line for a self preservationist.

I’m not sure it “puts my rep on the line” to state my genuine opinion on a subject…

 

…and to be honest, I’m not sure I have a reputation on this site…. for anything other than maybe passing a little too much time conversing on it! ?

 

I do think that if a reputation is something that could be undone by simply stating a minority opinion - then that reputation wasn’t one that was worth anything to me the first place. 

[MonaSaxPayne]

for the people seriously clamoring for a rarity leaderboard, shouldn't the dlc rarity calculation be fixed first?

[Mellenthin]

5 hours ago, MonaSaxPayne said:

for the people seriously clamoring for a rarity leaderboard, shouldn't the dlc rarity calculation be fixed first?

 

If it were in my power, it would have been done a long time ago.

 

Warhammer being my favourite fictional universe, Sly is basically the embodiment of the corpse-Emperor. Sitting immobile on a gilded throne, unable to interact with his subjects, only being kept alive with a steady stream of revenues.?

 

Jokes aside, it's up to Sly to revert that decision of his. Whether he'll do it or not, only time will tell.

[JayVR82]

The trick in a rarity leaderboard is to NOT try and score each GAME. Because you can simple not agree one one formula that everybody thinks is right. Lets instead look at the type of  PLAYER.

 

So lets base the leaderboard on the type of player then. I guess you can compare it to leadersboards in sports. The 100m guy is not competing with the 5km guy and also not with the marathon runner. But they are all running. They are just different types of runners, who are all just as good at what they like to do. And the way we decide who is the best is the same with all of them (we look at Olympic medals, fastest times, word championchips etc), but we don't even try to compare the 100m guy with the marathon guy. We see they are different things. 

 

So let us take this approach and look at trophies. We have tons of different games that we could look and score a certain way based on rarity, but lets not do that. Lets instead look at the players who like to run different distances, I mean, play in different ways. Lets take the % of common trophies somebody has (something already being calculated on this website and is on everybodys stats page). This stat tells us what type of player somebody is. Somebody with >75% enjoys to game and get trophies in a different way than somebody with <75% and I would even say somebody with <50% enjoys his gaming even differently. So lets keep the current "all leaderboard" and add a <75% leaderboard, and perhaps also a <50% leaderboard. You could go 100, 80, 60, 40%, whatever. The data is all already there.  

 

This would create different rankings, for different types of players. Without complex formulas and without stopping you from playing the way you play now. And if you don't care about rankings, it won't affect you. Just like the PS5 only leaderboard that was added didn't affect you. It would also not affect the current rankings people have. They would just be additional. And if you are in those new % ranges, you got a new leaderboard to be competitive. 

 

(Maybe the idea above is not so much a rarity ranking, but something completely different. I've tried to stay away from using the words effort, ezpz, time, points. this is simple another way to make a ranking that sticks with the most points is number one but also includes how people like to play. And is also easier to do compared to many other ideas on this forum.)

 

[JeManquedHygiene]

Quote

In recent months and years, parts of the community have repeatedly expressed displeasure regarding shovelware games and suggested a rarity leaderboard. Now the time has come where I would like to share my opinion on that and make a suggestion.

 

Somehow you've managed to come up with a completely broken system that would make the leaderboard 10 times worse and more unfair than what it is today, by rewarding niche shovelware games even more. That, my friend, is quite an ultra rare achievement worthy of all leaderboards.

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by JeManquedHygiene