Trophy Rarity Question

[FawltyPowers]

@Winston - That's what I and a few others have mentioned. Remove rarity from DLC altogether. In either form (main game owners or DLC owners) it doesn't hold any merit in comparison to the main game.

 

@nyonmyan - It's just my opinion to only have trophies active for installed content and you're probably right that it shouldn't be done that way, it was just my feelings. The main point I should have just stuck to was by having an install date present on any content is the only way to accurately know the correct owners and to then calculate Percentage completion and rarity correctly.

 

It will never happen so it's a mute point and this topic will go round and round in circles because you will never have percentage completion work in harmony with rarity for DLC.

[starcrunch061]

 

Firstly, I just want to say that Mango's idea is a good one. I certainly haven't come up with anything better.

 

Having said that, I feel the need to bring up the main downside of his idea, which is that the percentages will have to be arbitrarily chosen. Of course you could try to find a consensus as to what should be required for each rarity, but at the end of the day, it will lead to inconsistencies in the meaning of a trophy’s rarity.

 

What I mean by this is that when you look at the base game rarity, it will always be an indication of the same thing. It will tell you, "What percentage of people who played the game actually earned this trophy?" An Uncommon trophy will always mean that it was achieved by less than 50% of those who played the game.

 

Of course, it get's tricky for DLC trophies. In order for the rarity have the same meaning, we would need to know how many people played the DLC, and unfortunately that number isn't available. So which number should be used in its place? There are 3 main candidates worth comparing:

1. The current system, which uses “the number of people who have earned at least one DLC trophy”
2. The previous system, which uses “the number of people who own the base game"
3. The proposed system, which essentially uses "some arbitrary fraction of the number of people who own the base game"

Let me explain… If the requirement for an Uncommon DLC trophy is dropped from 50% to 5%, that is mathematically equal to leaving it at the standard 50% but assuming that only 10% of the base game owners played the DLC. Why is it better to use this number (a fixed portion of the base game owners) than any other number?

 

And here is where the issue arises. This proposal more heavily favours games with unpopular DLC. For example, trophies which are part of DLC which is played by only 1% of the base game players will automatically be Ultra-Rare, despite the fact that they might have been earned by every single player who attempted them. Conversely, trophies from on-disc DLC which is played by 100% of the base game players might be considered common even though they have only been earned by 5% of the players who attempted them. Isn’t this inconsistent with our idea of what rarity means?

 

So what is the solution? I don’t know. I feel like somehow it needs to take into account the closest thing we have to the number of DLC owners, which is the number of players who have earned at least one DLC trophy.

 

 

Why can't we just take the ratio of DLC owners to game owners (as defined by this site), and multiply that ratio by each of the rarities given.

 

Thus, e.g., if a game has 100,000 owners, and 25,000 people have earned a trophy in a DLC, then the rarity numbers get multiplied by 1/4. 

 

Sure, it's still flawed, because everything is flawed. But the best need not be the enemy of the good.

What about removing rarity from DLC trophies?

 

I've mentioned this before, but no one seems to like it.

[mekktor]

Why can't we just take the ratio of DLC owners to game owners (as defined by this site), and multiply that ratio by each of the rarities given.

 

Thus, e.g., if a game has 100,000 owners, and 25,000 people have earned a trophy in a DLC, then the rarity numbers get multiplied by 1/4. 

 

Sure, it's still flawed, because everything is flawed. But the best need not be the enemy of the good.

 

So in this suggestion, the percentages required for each rarity are not fixed across all games? If they can be varied depending on some value unique to the specific game (in your example, the ratio you mentioned), then that would open up a bunch of other options. Worth considering.

 

As far as I can see though, using that ratio will just leave all DLC rarities as they are now. In your example of 100,000 base game owners and 25,000 DLC owners, the percentages will be reduced to 1/4 of what they are now but the percentage requirements for each rarity will also be reduced by the same amount.

[starcrunch061]

So in this suggestion, the percentages required for each rarity are not fixed across all games? If they can be varied depending on some value unique to the specific game (in your example, the ratio you mentioned), then that would open up a bunch of other options. Worth considering.

 

As far as I can see though, using that ratio will just leave all DLC rarities as they are now. In your example of 100,000 base game owners and 25,000 DLC owners, the percentages will be reduced to 1/4 of what they are now but the percentage requirements for each rarity will also be reduced by the same amount.

 

LOL. Good point. I'm answering the wrong question here (namely, the problem of trophy percentage, which has come up often in its own right). Rarity designations (like UR, etc.) would need more refinement.

 

I do completely agree with your point that putting straightforward rarity across all DLC makes a big assumption about the numbers of people purchasing that DLC.

 

Also, to others, I'm aware that, probably, a floating rarity across games for DLC isn't feasible to implement. I'm just brainstormin' here.

It's really annoying when DLC content is released long after the main game when you may have already sold it. 

 

I disagree with a few of your suggestions, but this is my main gripe with DLC trophies in general. For example, Two Worlds 2 (a decent selling game, but certainly nothing that wowed anyone) released DLC YEARS after its release. Only around 1000 people (out of about 50000 game owners) even bothered, on a trophy hunting site.

Edited October 17, 2016 by starcrunch061

[mekktor]

LOL. Good point. I'm answering the wrong question here (namely, the problem of trophy percentage, which has come up often in its own right). Rarity designations (like UR, etc.) would need more refinement.

 

I do completely agree with your point that putting straightforward rarity across all DLC makes a big assumption about the numbers of people purchasing that DLC.

 

Also, to others, I'm aware that, probably, a floating rarity across games for DLC isn't feasible to implement. I'm just brainstormin' here.

 

I like the thinking behind the idea. It's the type of idea that might lead to something that, while not technically perfect, would at least address the issues that keep coming up. Nothing wrong with a bit of brainstorming.

 

Speaking of which, I've been thinking a bit myself. Keep in mind that what I'm about to put out there is not by any means a full and finished solution, but I do think it's worth a bit of further thought at least. So I was trying out a few different ways to base the percentage on both the base game owners and the DLC owners (as currently defined). One of them might have some potential:

 

P = ((T²)/(B*D))^0.5

 

Where P is the percentage, T is trophy achievers, B is base game owners and D is DLC owners (as currently defined on the site).

 

I tried it out on a couple of games which were re-released with the DLC on-disc, as this allows the results to be compared to the "Actual Percent" on the re-release (assuming 100% DLC ownership). You can compare the last two columns in the picture below to see that the results are actually quite reasonable, at least for this tiny sample. Obviously this is by no means definitive, and the extra complication may not be the right direction at all, but I thought it was at least worth sharing.

Edited October 17, 2016 by mekktor

[Dragon-Archon]

this is my main gripe with DLC trophies in general. For example, Two Worlds 2 (a decent selling game, but certainly nothing that wowed anyone) released DLC YEARS after its release. Only around 1000 people (out of about 50000 game owners) even bothered, on a trophy hunting site.

I really hated how Naughty Dog suddenly dumped 50 mp trophies on Uncharted 3.

[mekktor]

I really hated how Naughty Dog suddenly dumped 50 mp trophies on Uncharted 3.

 

To me, this is even worse than VR exclusive DLC trophies which require a $400 investment.

 

You could pay for multiple PSVR units with the time it takes to grind out those Uncharted 3 trophies.

[Dragon-Archon]

To me, this is even worse than VR exclusive DLC trophies which require a $400 investment.

 

You could pay for multiple PSVR units with the time it takes to grind out those Uncharted 3 trophies.

VR exclusive DLC trophies is pretty low too. If the entire game was re-released for the PSVR, then I'd understand.

[mekktor]

VR exclusive DLC trophies is pretty low too. If the entire game was re-released for the PSVR, then I'd understand.

 

I can understand how unfortunate it is for completionists, but at the same time I think it's the right decision. It really only affects a minority (completionists) of a minority (trophy hunters). It doesn't make sense to deny the rest the opportunity to earn trophies, just because a small group doesn't want to NOT earn them.

 

Besides, there are far worse issues out there like server shutdowns, glitched trophies etc. At the end of the day, the trophies are obtainable and there's always the option to put them off until the system is cheaper.

 

Oh, I'm sure there's a topic for this, I'll stop here.

[djb5f]

The other way overinflated the rarities because so many people don't bother to buy the overpriced DLC in the first place.

 

But at least those numbers meant a little something and had some consistency within a game and across games.

 

As it is today, they mean absolutely nothing.  Might as well remove rarity %'s from DLC trophies, that is how worthless the current percentages are.

I like the thinking behind the idea. It's the type of idea that might lead to something that, while not technically perfect, would at least address the issues that keep coming up. Nothing wrong with a bit of brainstorming.

 

Speaking of which, I've been thinking a bit myself. Keep in mind that what I'm about to put out there is not by any means a full and finished solution, but I do think it's worth a bit of further thought at least. So I was trying out a few different ways to base the percentage on both the base game owners and the DLC owners (as currently defined). One of them might have some potential:

 

P = ((T²)/(B*D))^0.5

 

Where P is the percentage, T is trophy achievers, B is base game owners and D is DLC owners (as currently defined on the site).

 

I tried it out on a couple of games which were re-released with the DLC on-disc, as this allows the results to be compared to the "Actual Percent" on the re-release (assuming 100% DLC ownership). You can compare the last two columns in the picture below to see that the results are actually quite reasonable, at least for this tiny sample. Obviously this is by no means definitive, and the extra complication may not be the right direction at all, but I thought it was at least worth sharing.

 

I find this interesting but you got to help explain the significance of "P = ((T²)/(B*D))^0.5" 

 

 

^{Why should this come out close to the expected percentage?   The fact that it does more or less in a couple of cases doesn't justify its usage.  The formula itself has to mean something, maybe it does??}

 

 

^{EDIT - Also I don't understand how Last of Us Grounded Mode shows as 1% under Old Method and under Actual result shows as 7%.  Wouldn't they be the same percentage (7%) since all DLC is on disc.  In either case, it would be the achievers of that DLC over the total number of people who have the game.  Unless you are mixing and matching ps3 (old method) and ps4 (actual method)???}

Edited October 17, 2016 by djb5f

[Se7en]

Can’t we just stop assuming arbitrarily the number of separate DLC owners (like current system does) or trying to invent some magic formula for 'believable' percentage, as there is no way to figure it out correctly and every sophisticated calculations are plain artificial? Let’s agree instead to base DLC trophies rarity on the same and only number of people we know more or less exactly — base game players, as Sony is doing itself. After all, DLC trophies are still integral part of particular games trophy lists and are counted towards 100% completion of their respective games, like it or not, have bought and played them or skipped for any personal reason.

As for 'too many [easy] DLC trophies will be in Very Rare and Ultra Rare categories' reason — so be it. DLC trophies are destined by default to be more rare than the regular ones, as there will always be less people who get and play DLCs than the base game. If something is less common then it is more rare, it’s just maths and has nothing to do with totally subjective things like trophy difficulty or feeling that it is unfare to have a bunch of simple DLC trophies listed as more rare than some tough platinums. Rarity is about how many players have got trophy, not how easy/difficult it was to get.

As a compromise for visual purposes there could be implemented two separate blocks with the rarest trophies — one for base games and another for DLCs. The latter might be optional and switched off by user.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Se7en_Rus

[djb5f]

Rarity is about how many players have got trophy, not how easy/difficult it was to get.

As a compromise for visual purposes there could be implemented two separate blocks at the profile with the rarest trophies — one for base games and another for DLCs. The latter might be optional and switched off by user.

 

Agree with so much you say, but there is a very large correlation between rarity and how easy/difficult it is to get.

 

I fully agree with your last point and have requested that in the past myself.  Seems like the easiest and most logical solution.   I'd say default it to not show most rare DLC trophies but allow the user to toggle that (like they can with trophy advisor).

 

And also agree, that any other calculation of the rarity % of DLC trophies is artificial.  Damn shame there is no good way to tell how many people have the DLC.

[mekktor]

I find this interesting but you got to help explain the significance of "P = ((T2)/(B*D))0.5" 

 

 

Why should this come out close to the expected percentage?   The fact that it does more or less in a couple of cases doesn't justify its usage.  The formula itself has to mean something, maybe it does??

 

 

EDIT - Also I don't understand how Last of Us Grounded Mode shows as 1% under Old Method and under Actual result shows as 7%.  Wouldn't they be the same percentage (7%) since all DLC is on disc.  In either case, it would be the achievers of that DLC over the total number of people who have the game.  Unless you are mixing and matching ps3 (old method) and ps4 (actual method)???

 

It's calculating the average of the two percentages (from both the old method and the current method), using the geometric mean instead of the arithmetic mean. As I understand it, it's basically a more useful method of averaging two ratios. I wasn't sure if it would work for this, so I tried it out and I was surprised by the results. A bit more explanation of the maths:

 

The old method of calculating percentages is P₁ = T/B

 

The current method is P₂ = T/D

 

The standard method to average these two values is to add them together and divide by two (arithmetic mean). Averaging two ratios like this however doesn't usually give great results. Another option is to multiply them together and take the square root (geometric mean).

 

P = (P₁*P₂)^0.5 = ((T/B)*(T/D))^0.5 = (T²/(B*D))^0.5

 

Also, to answer your other question, the first three columns (Old Method, Current Method, Proposed Method) are all using numbers from the original release. The last column (Actual Percent) was just to compare the 3 methods against. I looked at the GOTY Edition and assumed that everybody who played the game also played the DLC. So in other words, it uses the old method on the GOTY Edition.

 

 

Can’t we just stop assuming arbitrarily the number of separate DLC owners (like current system does) or trying to invent some magic formula for 'believable' percentage, as there is no way to figure it out correctly and every sofisticated calculations are plain artificial? Let’s agree instead to base DLC trophies rarity on the same and only number of people we know more or less exactly — base game players, as Sony is doing itself. After all, DLC trophies are still integral part of particular games trophy lists and are counted towards 100% completion of their respective games, like it or not, have bought and played them or skipped for any personal reason.

As for 'too many [easy] DLC trophies will be in Very Rare and Ultra Rare categories' reason — so be it. DLC trophies are destined by default to be more rare than the regular ones, as there will always be less people who get and play DLCs than the base game. If something is less common then it is more rare, it’s just maths and has nothing to do with totally subjective things like trophy difficulty or feeling that it is unfare to have a bunch of simple DLC trophies listed as more rare than some tough Platinums. Rarity is about how many players have got trophy, not how easy/difficult it was to get.

As a compromise for visual purposes there could be implemented two separate blocks at the profile with the rarest trophies — one for base games and another for DLCs. The latter might be optional and switched off by user.

 

It's not a magic formula. There are already more complicated formulas being used to calculate your stats. Having said that, I agree with most of what you say. Using the base game owners is better than using DLC 'owners' even if it skews the trophies towards being more rare.

[ProfBambam55]

oh, this is so much fun...i'm beginning to develop a bit of a bias as i toss this around in my head...it all comes down to the definition of rarity in its purest form vs displaying rarity in a fair, attempts vs successes percentage...here's what i've come up with...DLC messes up the latter stat for various reasons as has been thoroughly discussed thus far so will not go into too much detail but just say that unfortunately the system is what ii is so there is no point in debating it at this point in time...so how do we solve this problem?...the only fair solution that i've come up with is the following and i'm sure there will be objection:

(beginning of another rant)let's think of other things that are rare and see if they can be applied to our rarity problem...i like gold or disease as examples but lotteries, cars, precious stones and animals are also quite interesting...let's look at gold just for the sake of having some fun here...there are currently roughly 171,300 tonnes of gold above earth and about 7.4 billion people in the world...that's a rarity of about 0.0023%...awesome number...that means gold is pretty darn rare...trying to calculate it in terms of how much gold each person owns of the total mass doesn't make much sense here nor how many intend to own gold, or how many people own gold and don't even know it so let's stop here...is the 0.0023% stat not rarity at it's best?...

let's skip to disease...what makes a disease rare?...is it the amount of diseased people who have a said disease? (as in, out of X amount of sick people, y have this certain disease)...is it the number of cases discovered worldwide?...often the totals are of documented cases so to me the latter stat is in fact rarity at it's best...

now let's apply this to our video games...this site currently tracks 2,883,688 members...i will use some of the platinums from my list as examples but this could be applied to any trophy and still be accurate in terms of rarity...195 people have achieved the TMNT: OOTS platinum...that's a rarity of about 0.007%...the walking dead on the other hand has seen 124,635 which would be roughly 4.32%...and gta v, at 20,061, is almost 0.7%...is calculating like this this not the only way to bypass any subjectivity?...every trophy, dlc or base game would undergo the same calculation of value...less played games will often = rarer trophies...if we attempt to calculate in any other way we get messed up thanks to the dlc issue and the mentality that we are trying to fairly consider things like difficulty, time consumption, cost, server shutdowns, versions that include dlc, etc. which math doesn't necessarily do justice to...

once again, who cares about world totals, we're trophy hunters right (so to me how much i own of the total mass of gold is important)?...that's awesome and the way the stat is now is about as accurate as can be...it will make dlc trophies stats all wonky in relation to the base game...can we live with it?...not my decision...the only way i can see to bypass all subjectivity, which ruins the ideal of trying to calculate each game's trophies independantly is to calculate on a total user basis, just as gold is rare whether i intend to own it, actually own it, or not at all...haha...loving this thread...

edit: forgot to add, apologies if my math is off...hopefully the point i'm trying to make won't be missed due to miscalculations should there be any...

Edited October 17, 2016 by ProfBambam55

[djb5f]

oh, this is so much fun...i'm beginning to develop a bit of a bias as i toss this around in my head...it all comes down to the definition of rarity in its purest form vs displaying rarity in a fair, attempts vs successes percentage...here's what i've come up with...DLC messes up the latter stat for various reasons as has been thoroughly discussed thus far so will not go into too much detail but just say that unfortunately the system is what ii is so there is no point in debating it at this point in time...so how do we solve this problem?...the only fair solution that i've come up with is the following and i'm sure there will be objection:

(beginning of another rant)let's think of other things that are rare and see if they can be applied to our rarity problem...i like gold or disease as examples but lotteries, cars, precious stones and animals are also quite interesting...let's look at gold just for the sake of having some fun here...there are currently roughly 171,300 tonnes of gold above earth and about 7.4 billion people in the world...that's a rarity of about 0.0023%...awesome number...that means gold is pretty darn rare...trying to calculate it in terms of how much gold each person owns of the total mass doesn't make much sense here nor how many intend to own gold, or how many people own gold and don't even know it so let's stop here...is the 0.0023% stat not rarity at it's best?...

let's skip to disease...what makes a disease rare?...is it the amount of diseased people who have a said disease? (as in, out of X amount of sick people, y have this certain disease)...is it the number of cases discovered worldwide?...often the totals are of documented cases so to me the latter stat is in fact rarity at it's best...

now let's apply this to our video games...this site currently tracks 2,883,688 members...i will use some of the platinums from my list as examples but this could be applied to any trophy and still be accurate in terms of rarity...195 people have achieved the TMNT: OOTS platinum...that's a rarity of about 0.007%...the walking dead on the other hand has seen 124,635 which would be roughly 4.32%...and gta v, at 20,061, is almost 0.7%...is calculating like this this not the only way to bypass any subjectivity?...every trophy, dlc or base game would undergo the same calculation of value...less played games will often = rarer trophies...if we attempt to calculate in any other way we get messed up thanks to the dlc issue and the mentality that we are trying to fairly consider things like difficulty, time consumption, cost, server shutdowns, versions that include dlc, etc. which math doesn't necessarily do justice to...

once again, who cares about world totals, we're trophy hunters right (so to me how much i own of the total mass of gold is important)?...that's awesome and the way the stat is now is about as accurate as can be...it will make dlc trophies stats all wonky in relation to the base game...can we live with it?...not my decision...the only way i can see to bypass all subjectivity, which ruins the ideal of trying to calculate each game's trophies independantly is to calculate on a total user basis, just as gold is rare whether i intend to own it, actually own it, or not at all...haha...loving this thread...

edit: forgot to add, apologies if my math is off...hopefully the point i'm trying to make won't be missed due to miscalculations should there be any...

 

 

ha, in that case, why would you limit to the 2,883,688 tracked members, might as well open it up to ALL gamers of that console.  Actually, why stop there.   What is the world population at these days?  Might as well use that as the denominator since it doesn't matter if you own the game or not!

 

And no, I don't support that but interesting stuff

[ProfBambam55]

why stop there?...because it is the smallest number that is being tracked that would offer consistency that i could come up with off hand...although adding world, etc totals would have the same ratio so also valid...you could also just do percentages from the highest total of game owners (black ops @ 981,286) and it would also work for all games as long as the number is consistent when dividing...what i mean is using the above totals: 195/X : 124,635/X : 20.061/X would remain true if X was the same...pick a number, 1,000,00 works as a value of X as well...the brackets from common to ultra rare would just need to be altered...

Edited October 17, 2016 by ProfBambam55

[djb5f]

why stop there?...because it is the smallest number that is being tracked that would offer consistency that i could come up with off hand...although adding world, etc totals would have the same ratio so also valid...you could also just do percentages from the highest total of game owners (black ops @ 981,286) and it would also work for all games as long as the number is consistent when dividing...what i mean is using the above totals: 195/X : 124,635/X : 20.061/X would remain true if X was the same...pick a number, 1,000,00 works as a value of X as well...the brackets from common to ultra rare would just need to be altered...

 

 consistency at what price?  the DLC tracking is an issue but if you are using a denominator that includes people that don't own the base game, then those numbers are rendered meaningless.

 

You can easily get what you are looking for by looking at "# of achievers", no ratio needed and no benefit of mucking up the rarity ratings.

 

I think you can sort trophies on # of achievers or if not, then yeah, could be nice to see.  Don't foul that up by adding a non-sensical denominator.

[mekktor]

why stop there?...because it is the smallest number that is being tracked that would offer consistency...although adding world, etc totals would have the same ratio so also valid...you could also just do percentages from the highest total of game owners and it would also work for all games as long as the number is consistent when dividing...what i mean is using the above totals: 195/X : 124,635/X : 20.061/X would remain true if X was the same...pick a number, 1,000,00 works as a value of X as well...the brackets from common to ultra rare would just need to be altered...

 

It certainly would represent one possible definition of rarity. Keep in mind though, this is equivalent to the "Achievers" stat.

 

I personally think the current definition for the base game (how many achieved out of how many attempted) has more meaning to it. It's just a shame PSN doesn't track how many players attempt the DLC.

[ProfBambam55]

haha...right, but the achievers stat is not a percentage...we could also say that rarity now is just the achievers stat divided by the game owners multiplied by 100...pretty obvious stuff...haha...again, not in disagreement with the way the stat is now considering the nature of the site but can't help but find "rarity percentage" confusing in some ways especially with regards to base game vs dlc...since i've began to understand how the rarity stats work and what problems people are having with them my suggestion has been that if we have a conflict that has two relatively equal sides, then why not appease them both by offering 2 separate stats?...the rest has been food for thought...few people have actually adressed this question...so far it seems to have been more along the lines of debating both sides which seems to be going nowhere as it usually does when an equal number of people support either side of a theory/belief...am totally digging people's thoughts nonetheless though and particularly ones that offer a solution to The Rarity Debate...i'm sure some genius out there will browse this thread and post "i've got it...the solution to all our problems!... ... ..."...

Edited October 17, 2016 by ProfBambam55

[mekktor]

haha...right, but the achievers stat is not a percentage...we could also say that rarity now is just the achievers stat divided by the game owners multiplied by 100...pretty obvious stuff...haha...again, not in disagreement with the way the stat is now considering the nature of the site but can't help but find "rarity percentage" confusing in some ways especially with regards to base game vs dlc...since i've began to understand how the rarity stats work and what problems people are having with them my suggestion has been that if we have a conflict that has two relatively equal sides, then why not appease them both by offering 2 separate stats?...the rest has been food for thought...few people have actually adressed this question...so far it seems to have been more along the lines of debating both sides which seems to be going nowhere as it usually does when an equal number of people support either side of a theory/belief...am totally digging people's thoughts nonetheless though...i'm sure some genius out there will browse this thread and post "i've got it...the solution to all our problems!... ... ..."...

 

Well, the achievers stat could be considered a percentage which uses the super arbitrary number "100" as the denominator 

 

Seriously though, what I meant was that it gives us the exact same information as the rarity would in your latest suggestion. And we would lose the useful information that the rarity stat gives us now (useful for the base game trophies at least).

 

I will say that the percentages and rarities as they are now are completely useless for the DLC trophies, and in my opinion the old method of using the base game owners in the calculation is far superior. However, I do keep coming back to the same thought. I feel that as long as the chosen method uses only one of the two relevant pieces of information we have (base game owners, dlc trophy achievers), it just won't be possible for the results to represent true rarity.

[djb5f]

Yes, my point above too, profbambam is just looking for # of achievers.

For DLC rarity, no good way, but I'd take the old way (skewed but consistent within a game with multiple DLC lists and across games) over the current way (totally non-sensical).

Today's DLC rarities is comically bad

[thegirlruka]

Agree with so much you say, but there is a very large correlation between rarity and how easy/difficult it is to get.

refer to my post from earlier in the thread

 

It's pretty rare for rarity to actually represent difficulty in a game. 90 of my total 114 Ultrarare trophies aren't considered more than a 7/10 difficulty to obtain and 11 of the 17 Ultrarare trophies on my profile that are under 1% rarity aren't more than 6/10. 

Edited October 17, 2016 by kuuhaku

[djb5f]

refer to my post from earlier in the thread

Not sure where you are getting individual trophy difficulty rankings. Or perhaps you are just applying a voting of trophy difficulty for a whole game to an individual trophy which has its flaws. One, relies of people subjectively voting and you can get a lot of 1's or 10's just to mess with the rating. Second, it is meant for the whole game and people don't take always into account hardest trophies. Third, the polls I've seen often don't get a whole lot of votes so not as anchored. And lastly, not consistent between games, as different people vote for different games and have different scales.

Anyway, I don't think anyone can't argue that there isn't a very strong correlation between rarity and difficulty. It is not perfect 1:1, but is absolutely the most important factor. There are other factors like time (although you could argue that finding enough time to grind is part of the difficulty), or having a larger percentage of game owners being tracked who aren't trophy hunters, etc.

 

EDIT - and if you are using playstationtrophies.org that often for a game has only a smattering of overall difficultly votes and applying it to individual trophies, I'd say the rarity ratings here are actually BETTER representations of difficulty than those.  Not perfect of course as it doesn't take into account time, interest, etc, but obviously a very strong correlation.

Edited October 17, 2016 by djb5f

[ProfBambam55]

absolutely agree with much of what has been covered up to this point...i apologize in advance for repeating what has already been said numerous times...i've taken a rather large interest in this thread as i find stats and numbers and all that fascinating and particularly with regards to what has become a rarity debate...i should add that i'm quite limited in not only intellect but also math skills...here's what i've understood so far, and i will try to be as clear as possible for the sake of welcoming positive feedback:

this is a site intended mainly for trophy hunters...the rarity statistic used to calculate DLC totals based on main game owners...meaning an achievers/game owners X 100 equation for all trophies of a certain game...people were against this as this and other threads demonstrate...the main question being that why would we include people who may or may not have even purchased the DLC to calculate our totals?...a decision was made to change the rarity stat to the most accurate one available, the one that we have now...it is now calculated on achievers/base game owners X 100 equation and achievers/DLC owners X 100...some people have a problem with this specifically with regards to DLC content not being consistent with base game totals...it is a reasonable argument despite the math being the best calculation possible in showing a ratio of achievers/attempts...one of the biggest problems amongst others in calculating rarity totals, which we see no indication of ever changing hence is not worth debating, is that DLC trophies are automatically added to our profiles regardless of whether we buy or play them or not...so how do we solve this?...

as i thought more about the situation i started to question both sides of the argument wondering if a middle ground could be found...i also wondered what rarity really means by thinking of other things that are rare...as in the example above with gold, i think the total amount of gold in the world defines "rare" well when considering an overall population...i can't deny though that if this was a gold hunters site, i'd be all about comparing how much gold each member had and who has the biggest piece to define "rare"...this thought process led me to kind of want the best of both worlds therefore the best solution i could come up with (haha....and i've had it on my mind for a couple days now) to solve the ongoing debate of which stat is best is "please both groups, show both stats"...aside from repeated arguments basically coming down to "i think it should be the way it is now/was before", "i think sony should make dlc trophies separate" i'm curious as to whether us trophy hunters can come up with a solution that would make us all happy thereby outsmarting even sony...anyone have any contructive ideas?...would having 2 stats displayed, the one we have now and the one we had before, not be a simple solution to the problem?...

Edited October 17, 2016 by ProfBambam55

[thegirlruka]

Not sure where you are getting individual trophy difficulty rankings. Or perhaps you are just applying a voting of trophy difficulty for a whole game to an individual trophy which has its flaws. One, relies of people subjectively voting and you can get a lot of 1's or 10's just to mess with the rating. Second, it is meant for the whole game and people don't take always into account hardest trophies. Third, the polls I've seen often don't get a whole lot of votes so not as anchored. And lastly, not consistent between games, as different people vote for different games and have different scales.

Anyway, I don't think anyone can't argue that there isn't a very strong correlation between rarity and difficulty. It is not perfect 1:1, but is absolutely the most important factor. There are other factors like time (although you could argue that finding enough time to grind is part of the difficulty), or having a larger percentage of game owners being tracked who aren't trophy hunters, etc.

I'm talking about individual trophies rather than overall difficulty. A great deal of the ultrarares on my profile only require a grind or can be easily boosted. I'd rate those less than or equal to 5. For one of them you literally only need to play 50 matches. You don't even need to win the match. For one of them you need to press only a single button with no time restriction but it needs to be pressed 1 million times. Those would both be a 1/10 difficulty (unless 0/10 is acceptable) because it requires no thought or reaction, but just pressing a button.

Edited October 17, 2016 by kuuhaku