Grimydawg's Giveaway

[Enstikto]

Is the rarity percentage for each game platted calculated as it is at the time the person gets the plat or at the end of the month?

[Leo Leopold Leon III]

and I had to plat the whole R&C trilogy this month,..oh well I atleast platinumed the rest of CoD series

[Sir_Bee]

Is the rarity percentage for each game platted calculated as it is at the time the person gets the plat or at the end of the month?

It says in the rules on the first page . It is at the time you get the platinum.

[Enstikto]

Oops :$

Thanks

@Grimydawg: There is a problem with your formula (just saying)

Let's say that there are two people who both get the same two plats.

Let's say that the one game has 1% and the other 3% completion rate.

Both would have ((1+3)/2)/2 = 2/2 = 1%.

Lets say that the 2nd person plays another game and plats it which has a percentage rate of 8.

The first one would still be at 1%.

The 2nd one would be at ((1+3+8)/3)/3 = 4/3 = 1,33%

The 2nd person did more work than the first (he got all the plats that the 1st person got and got an extra one) but he loses...

Isn't this a bit unfair?

Edited August 29, 2012 by Enstikto

[Sir_Bee]

Oops :$

Thanks

@Grimydawg: There is a problem with your formula (just saying)

Let's say that there are two people who both get the same two plats.

Let's say that the one game has 1% and the other 3% completion rate.

Both would have ((1+3)/2)/2 = 2/2 = 1%.

Lets say that the 2nd person plays another game and plats it which has a percentage rate of 8.

The first one would still be at 1%.

The 2nd one would be at ((1+3+8)/3)/3 = 4/3 = 1,33%

The 2nd person did more work than the first (he got all the plats that the 1st person got and got an extra one) but he loses...

Isn't this a bit unfair?

If I can chime in, his formula would actually be much nicer to people than if he just calculated averages. At every stage, there will be a rarity percentage that will raise your score rather than lower it. Your examples are really low numbers, so that value will be really low, but we can use them as an example.

The two trophies being 1% and 3%, as you counted this would give an score of 1%. Now if we take a step back, we can find out that any trophy value under 5% will actually lower his score, while any value over that will raise his score. The total was 4, and with 3 plats a total of 9 will keep the value at 1, therefore he can afford to add 5% to his score.

Use bigger numbers for example. We start with 10% and 6%. That gives us a score of: (10+6)/2^2 = 4. Now to keep that score of 4, his next plat needs to be 4*9 - (10+6) = 20 or under.

Now if we look at it using just averages, with your example of 1 and 3. If his next plat were anything over 2% it would raise his average.

When the competition gets tight, you need to keep getting rarer platinums. That is what Grimy is trying to promote, and his formula supports that, while at the same time giving some leniency.

[Enstikto]

If you think it this way, yes you are correct.

The problem that I mentioned still exists though...

A way to handle it would be to say that each person would count their average rarity number by counting only the 2 most rares plats they have gotten this month and then dividing by total number of plats.

This way (in my scenario)

the 1st person would still have 2%

but the 2nd person would have 4/3 = 1,33

If someone wanted to lower their percentage they could still get a rarer plat!

The only problem with my method is that one could get 10 really easy plats and still win the competition...

So maybe you could place a rule like anything with over 20% completion rate doesn't count in ths competition or sth....

[Sir_Bee]

If you think it this way, yes you are correct.

The problem that I mentioned still exists though...

A way to handle it would be to say that each person would count their average rarity number by counting only the 2 most rares plats they have gotten this month and then dividing by total number of plats.

This way (in my scenario)

the 1st person would still have 2%

but the 2nd person would have 4/3 = 1,33

If someone wanted to lower their percentage they could still get a rarer plat!

The only problem with my method is that one could get 10 really easy plats and still win the competition...

So maybe you could place a rule like anything with over 20% completion rate doesn't count in ths competition or sth....

In the end it is up to Grimy, but I think that they reason you state at the bottom is why he would never implement this. Using your example, one person has a 1 and a 3 (both very difficult to get) and ends with a score of 2. Someone with 1 9, 1 10, and 3 20's (Arguably much easier to achieve) would have a score of 1.9 and win.

[grimydawg___]

The only problem with my method is that one could get 10 really easy plats and still win the competition...

So maybe you could place a rule like anything with over 20% completion rate doesn't count in ths competition or sth....

That is exactly why I'm not going to implement that. I actually thought about doing that initially, but that very problem is what I thought about.

In the end it is up to Grimy, but I think that they reason you state at the bottom is why he would never implement this. Using your example, one person has a 1 and a 3 (both very difficult to get) and ends with a score of 2. Someone with 1 9, 1 10, and 3 20's (Arguably much easier to achieve) would have a score of 1.9 and win.

I'm going to slightly change the rules at the end of this month. We'll see how it goes I'm up for better ideas. By all means if you have an idea, put in here.

Edited August 30, 2012 by grimydawg

[Stevieboy]

I'm going to slightly change the rules at the end of this month. We'll see how it goes I'm up for better ideas. By all means if you have an idea, put in here.

How about this?

For every plat you earn the actual percentage of it is added to your score. The person with the lowest total score (percentage) at the end of the month is the winner.

Simple as that.

EDIT: I must be half asleep. I've just realised this won't work if you earn loads of plats compaired to 1 low scoring plat.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Stevieboy

[BIGGAMER67]

adding WWE 12 - 9.20%

[grimydawg___]

adding WWE 12 - 9.20%

Updated.....

[Enstikto]

One thing you could do is follow what I mentioned above but also have each plat counting as more plats according to rarity.

For example you could say:

1 Ultra Rare plat = 5 plats

1 Very Rare Plat = 3 plats

1 Rape Plat = 1 plats

1 Uncommon Plat = 0.5 Plat

1 Common Plat = 0.25 Plat

Example: Someone gets An Ultra Rare Plat (3%), a very rare (8%) and a common.

We get the average % only by the two highest plats so it would be 8+3/2 = 5.5

Then we calculate the number of plats which is 5 (Ultra rare) + 3 (very rare) + 0.25 (common) = 8.25

and then we calculate 5.5/8.25 = 0,66

This way every plat counts for something but people are encouraged to go for hard plats to get more points!

Also the fact that Ultra rares give a lot more points than very rares encourages more people to go for URs.

You could also add extra categories like Ultra Ultra Rare (less than 1%) or Super Common (more than 80/90%) and have them count for more/less points accordingly

And you cease to have the problem that my previous suggestion had as 1 common plat is 1/20 UR plats (someone would prefer to get 1 UR plat than 20 common ones).

Wha do you think?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Enstikto

[Sir_Bee]

One thing you could do is follow what I mentioned above but also have each plat counting as more plats according to rarity.

For example you could say:

1 Ultra Rare plat = 5 plats

1 Very Rare Plat = 3 plats

1 Rape Plat = 1 plats

1 Uncommon Plat = 0.5 Plat

1 Common Plat = 0.25 Plat

Example: Someone gets An Ultra Rare Plat (3%), a very rare (8%) and a common.

We get the average % only by the two highest plats so it would be 8+3/2 = 5.5

Then we calculate the number of plats which is 5 (Ultra rare) + 3 (very rare) + 0.25 (common) = 8.25

and then we calculate 5.5/8.25 = 0,66

This way every plat counts for something but people are encouraged to go for hard plats to get more points!

Also the fact that Ultra rares give a lot more points than very rares encourages more people to go for URs.

You could also add extra categories like Ultra Ultra Rare (less than 1%) or Super Common (more than 80/90%) and have them count for more/less points accordingly

And you cease to have the problem that my previous suggestion had as 1 common plat is 1/20 UR plats (someone would prefer to get 1 UR plat than 20 common ones).

Wha do you think?

I have looked at this for a while, and I have yet to see a real problem with it. I like this idea . The only thing that I have noticed is a close battle of rares will be ended with just 1 ultra rare trophy, but I think that is Grimy's goal and he should support someone earning an ultra rare trophy. I also like the idea of only counting the top two trophies, that way your score will never go down by earning something new, but if you are getting common platinums, it won't go down by nearly enough to help. My example looking at this was 4 platinums, a 1%, 9%, 14%, 22%. The score would work out to 0.53, and if he adds another uncommon, it would only drop to 0.5. Also, that Ultra rare would need 2 or 3 rares to be beaten.

I think that it is a good system, lets see what Grimy thinks

[Quijabone]

My recommendation to Grymmy is.. don’t change the rules / method, remember this:

“My idea is not only promote more activity on here, but to motivate people as well. I think this is a good way to perhaps push people to finish their games too ”

On the first round of the Giveaway it really pushed me to finished a bid # of games when I tried to catch the 1^st place (I lose, but didn’t saw the 25 post rule anyway). Other method will make people stay lower # of games completed.

Anyway is your game , your rules and another great month of competition!!!!

[Sir_Bee]

My recommendation to Grymmy is.. don’t change the rules / method, remember this:

“My idea is not only promote more activity on here, but to motivate people as well. I think this is a good way to perhaps push people to finish their games too ”

On the first round of the Giveaway it really pushed me to finished a bid # of games when I tried to catch the 1^st place (I lose, but didn’t saw the 25 post rule anyway). Other method will make people stay lower # of games completed.

Anyway is your game , your rules and another great month of competition!!!!

I disagree, this new method mentioned by Enstikto promotes both the completion of many games as well as rewarding people for completing rarer games. The advantage is that it doesn't punish users for games that are over 20%, it just doesn't give a huge advantage for them.

[JCChrono]

One thing you could do is follow what I mentioned above but also have each plat counting as more plats according to rarity.

For example you could say:

1 Ultra Rare plat = 5 plats

1 Very Rare Plat = 3 plats

1 Rape Plat = 1 plats

1 Uncommon Plat = 0.5 Plat

1 Common Plat = 0.25 Plat

Example: Someone gets An Ultra Rare Plat (3%), a very rare (8%) and a common.

We get the average % only by the two highest plats so it would be 8+3/2 = 5.5

Then we calculate the number of plats which is 5 (Ultra rare) + 3 (very rare) + 0.25 (common) = 8.25

and then we calculate 5.5/8.25 = 0,66

This way every plat counts for something but people are encouraged to go for hard plats to get more points!

Also the fact that Ultra rares give a lot more points than very rares encourages more people to go for URs.

You could also add extra categories like Ultra Ultra Rare (less than 1%) or Super Common (more than 80/90%) and have them count for more/less points accordingly

And you cease to have the problem that my previous suggestion had as 1 common plat is 1/20 UR plats (someone would prefer to get 1 UR plat than 20 common ones).

Wha do you think?

HA! Best typo ever!

On a serious note, in my opinion the current rules are almost perfect. Like it was stated, the goal was to promote the rarest of platinums. The rules encourage getting many platinums, and applying a bit of algebra to what SirBee already mentioned would show that the more platinums you already have earned the more flexible the range of rarity you can play and lower your score. But in the end better rarity will always be the golden ticket to a victory here. A quick skim of this and last months winners show they not only platinumed many games, but all had a crazy low one in their mix.

So, I would recommend hypotethical platinum guy with (1,3,8) who's scroe went from 2% to 3% to play another 8 game tod rop his score to 1.25 and steal the victory from hypothetical guy who only has two plats (1,3).

Or look at another scenario.

Player A: 1,3

Player B: 1,3,98

Did player B work harder? Ehh....

Just my opinion.

[Sir_Bee]

HA! Best typo ever!

On a serious note, in my opinion the current rules are almost perfect. Like it was stated, the goal was to promote the rarest of platinums. The rules encourage getting many platinums, and applying a bit of algebra to what SirBee already mentioned would show that the more platinums you already have earned the more flexible the range of rarity you can play and lower your score. But in the end better rarity will always be the golden ticket to a victory here. A quick skim of this and last months winners show they not only platinumed many games, but all had a crazy low one in their mix.

So, I would recommend hypotethical platinum guy with (1,3,8) who's scroe went from 2% to 3% to play another 8 game tod rop his score to 1.25 and steal the victory from hypothetical guy who only has two plats (1,3).

Or look at another scenario.

Player A: 1,3

Player B: 1,3,98

Did player B work harder? Ehh....

Just my opinion.

That is a fair point, and can be addressed by making common plats have no value. That way the guy who did 1, 3, 49 does actually have to work a little bit harder to get the platinum that puts him in the lead.

[JCChrono]

That is a fair point, and can be addressed by making common plats have no value. That way the guy who did 1, 3, 49 does actually have to work a little bit harder to get the platinum that puts him in the lead.

To improve the current system, I could see each person still calling out their platinums and then self selecting which group they'd like to be used for their final score (minimum of two used)

So...

(5,3) --> Score is 2

(5,3,11) --> Only use (5,3), score is 2

(5,3,11,11) --> Use all four, score is 1.875, and I can relax and play Hannah Montana and not wait for the month to end first.

I think each person would have to do their own math at the end of the month to avoid giving grimy a headache, but this way people won't be punished for enjoying an easier game to break up the hunt of ultra rare platinums. In theory, a person could power through lots of platinums in a month and make a platinum of 49 rarity actually lower their score, so I think this "submit your own group" idea continues to encourage rare plat hunting without punishing play for fun breaks.

Edited August 30, 2012 by JCChrono

[Sir_Bee]

To improve the current system, I could see each person still calling out their platinums and then self selecting which group they'd like to be used for their final score (minimum of two used)

So...

(5,3) --> Score is 2

(5,3,11) --> Only use (5,3), score is 2

(5,3,11,11) --> Use all four, score is 1.875, and I can relax and play Hannah Montana and not wait for the month to end first.

I think each person would have to do their own math at the end of the month to avoid giving grimy a headache, but this way people won't be punished for enjoying an easier game to break up the hunt of ultra rare platinums. In theory, a person could power through lots of platinums in a month and make a platinum of 49 rarity actually lower their score, so I think this "submit your own group" idea continues to encourage rare plat hunting without punishing play for fun breaks.

I think that this is an interesting idea, but it adds extra work trying to figure out which is the best combination. It may make things more complicated than they need to for Grimmy, but he will have to be the judge of that.

[JCChrono]

I think that this is an interesting idea, but it adds extra work trying to figure out which is the best combination. It may make things more complicated than they need to for Grimmy, but he will have to be the judge of that.

That's why I suggested the indivdual submit the group they want scored, so grimy wouldn't have to deal with the headache.

OR, players can just aim for really rare platinums, as is the game's intent. Now that I reflect on it, my idea has its own flaws so I would throw it out. To the original concern over (1,3,8) lowering the score of (1,3), I would simplify all of this by pointing out no one forced that player to finish the third platinum. If the 8 platinum was Rainbow Moon, I could save my game at level 499.9 and platium it on September 1 to keep my score intact. A quick math check of adding the thrd plat would have shown it was a bad idea to finish the game.

There are many ways to do the contest, so plan accordinly, or just play games you like and cross your fingers they're rare enough to earn you a free gift from grimy.

[CasaDeBen]

All ideas aside... adding Army Corps of Hell at 4.30% and im pretty sure its my first ultra rare plat, so bam!

[Enstikto]

I think that being able to select which plats you want to include in the competition is also a good idea. This way I don't have to wait to get a plat I want to try to get in a quick time just because it would make me to lose the competition.

It may make things a little more complicated though. I think the other method I proposed has no disadvantages.

Everything you do counts for the competition. The harder it is the more it counts.

And as I said before you could use more ranges than the ones that I mentioned.

For example a <1% plat would count for 7 plats while a very common one with >90% completion rate would count for 0.1 or maybe even nothing!

[JCChrono]

I think that being able to select which plats you want to include in the competition is also a good idea. This way I don't have to wait to get a plat I want to try to get in a quick time just because it would make me to lose the competition.

It may make things a little more complicated though. I think the other method I proposed has no disadvantages.

Everything you do counts for the competition. The harder it is the more it counts.

And as I said before you could use more ranges than the ones that I mentioned.

For example a <1% plat would count for 7 plats while a very common one with >90% completion rate would count for 0.1 or maybe even nothing!

The disadvantage I see for yours is the jump between ratings. A 5.01% plat would earn 3 points, a 4.99% would earn 3 (my example may be a bit off, but you get the idea). Sure adding more layers will lessen this issue, but with tiers some degree of an issue will still exist until you break up the tiers to the point that you're right back to the original rules of the game, where a marginally better plat and marginally better scored.

[Leo Leopold Leon III]

so basicaly the best idea would be to give certain points to platinums according to rarity?

I think this would be the most easiest way of calculation

[CompSci88]

I got 26 plats in August, but still they aren't enough to get a good percentage.