Geometric Mean for DLC Trophies

[sephiroth4424]

Well, i must say i was pleased to see my rarity % drop, but then i realized that everyone's rarity % dropped so i'm back at square one...

Unsatisfied to the end 

[jaehyun1009]

14 hours ago, Se7en said:

Fancy way to disguise the more deep inconsistency issue of treating trophies from the same game differently 

 

You know that the new number is mathematically precise calculation based exactly on those two “broken” methods combined, innit?

And, strictly speaking, now it is not rarity at all, but the average value of two different types of rarity. Like, say, GDP per capita represents how much goods and services were produced in a country for every its citizen, and GDP per officially employed worker represents share of such person in all produced goods and services. Geometric mean of these two values represents nothing but a fancy number, which is higher than the first one and lower than the second one. People might like how it looks compared to the other two values, but the truth is it doesn’t have real practical meaning apart from being something average of two totally separate statistics

Strictly speaking the only stat that truly matters is the PSN rarity.

Edited February 5, 2017 by jaehyun1009
Double post

[Manuelito]

I come back on PSNP and I see this amazing!

Edited February 5, 2017 by Winston

[Fing3rButt3r3]

Didn't know this, good to know.

[voleman79]

Edited July 28, 2018 by voleman79

[Tekyumeeee]

I understand people's frustrations of DLC rarity percentages not necessarily reflecting how rare they should be, especially when you can't really track DLC ownership without the player having first earned a trophy from said DLC but I think this is kind of silly. Some games (especially older ones and especially ones that have been on PS+) have huge differences between the amount of players  that own the game and actually own the DLC. So there are trophies going from common to very rare in some cases which I think is worse of an inaccurate presentation than before where even considerably difficult DLC trophies were only "Rare" or "Uncommon".

 

But I guess whatever to make people feel better about themselves to have more "rare" trophies, even though I think there being more rare trophies make having rare trophies, well... less rare. So I'll just be one of the few that disagrees with this decision but I'll have to accept it as it must be something that has deeply troubled this community for a long time that something like this actually had to be done.

[FawltyPowers]

6 hours ago, Jay_Cash said:

I understand people's frustrations of DLC rarity percentages not necessarily reflecting how rare they should be, especially when you can't really track DLC ownership without the player having first earned a trophy from said DLC but I think this is kind of silly. Some games (especially older ones and especially ones that have been on PS+) have huge differences between the amount of players  that own the game and actually own the DLC. So there are trophies going from common to very rare in some cases which I think is worse of an inaccurate presentation than before where even considerably difficult DLC trophies were only "Rare" or "Uncommon".

 

But I guess whatever to make people feel better about themselves to have more "rare" trophies, even though I think there being more rare trophies make having rare trophies, well... less rare. So I'll just be one of the few that disagrees with this decision but I'll have to accept it as it must be something that has deeply troubled this community for a long time that something like this actually had to be done.

 

What you have to remember is that the only true exact figure would be for Sony to have a flag that recognises when you install DLC. This figure then becomes the Owners figure. I don't think this will ever happen though.

 

At a guess (and that's all it can ever be) I would say that if that flag was in place trophy rarity would fall somewhere between Sony's rarity figures (the original PSNP figures) and the Geometric figures.

 

PSNP has tried using Main game owners (the method I prefer) but for the neutral it weighted rarity heavily towards Ultra Rare and left people shaking their head saying "No way that DLC trophy should be more rare than a trophy in the Main Game".

 

Then PSNP tried using people who have earned a trophy for that DLC as the base for the number of owners and that swung the pendulum the other way making it extremely unlikely a trophy would ever become Ultra Rare and left people shaking their head saying "No way that trophy in the Main game should be more rare than a trophy in the DLC".

 

So there needed to be a middle ground, it may not be perfect but it will suit the majority because the rarity of DLC trophies look a bit more realistic. They do to me even though I know it is all based from pure guess work, this is the closest they will be unless Sony add that flag. Also some games with DLC will look disjointed depending on which of the three methods are used based mainly on their cost and also how far after the main game was released the DLC was released. So many different factors that you can pick apart.

 

Also if you aren't sold on this new figure it is easy to set up your own spreadsheet and use whatever method you prefer as Sly gives us Main Game Owners and DLC Owners on the Trophy Log to calculate the previous two methods easily.

 

[gameoncomrade]

11 minutes ago, FawltyPowers said:

 

What you have to remember is that the only true exact figure would be for Sony to have a flag that recognises when you install DLC. This figure then becomes the Owners figure. I don't think this will ever happen though.

 

At a guess (and that's all it can ever be) I would say that if that flag was in place trophy rarity would fall somewhere between Sony's rarity figures (the original PSNP figures) and the Geometric figures.

 

PSNP has tried using Main game owners (the method I prefer) but for the neutral it weighted rarity heavily towards Ultra Rare and left people shaking their head saying "No way that DLC trophy should be more rare than a trophy in the Main Game".

 

Then PSNP tried using people who have earned a trophy for that DLC as the base for the number of owners and that swung the pendulum the other way making it extremely unlikely a trophy would ever become Ultra Rare and left people shaking their head saying "No way that trophy in the Main game should be more rare than a trophy in the DLC".

 

So there needed to be a middle ground, it may not be perfect but it will suit the majority because the rarity of DLC trophies look a bit more realistic. They do to me even though I know it is all based from pure guess work, this is the closest they will be unless Sony add that flag. Also some games with DLC will look disjointed depending on which of the three methods are used based mainly on their cost and also how far after the main game was released the DLC was released. So many different factors that you can pick apart.

 

Also if you aren't sold on this new figure it is easy to set up your own spreadsheet and use whatever method you prefer as Sly gives us Main Game Owners and DLC Owners on the Trophy Log to calculate the previous two methods easily.

 

 

I can't agree more. Even though it's not the perfect solution it might be the best possible solution for now. The other methods were fine as well, but I always wanted it to be similar to this method. Seeing a very simple trophy being ultra rare was downright weird. Seeing the Grounded trophy for The Last of Us being achieved by 100 % of all DLC owners was unacceptable. I like the new way, and I really hope that Sly won't go back to the older methods.

[starcrunch061]

On 2/4/2017 at 6:45 AM, Se7en said:

 

I do, no offence. Just felt obliged to point out that the new calculation is completely based on the same two “broken” methods people didn’t like in the past.

 

Most aggregate statistics are nothing more than new calculations based on single stats which are "broken" when considered alone. That's why they are taken in the aggregate.

 

For example, credit reports are made up of single measures, all of which fail to measure credit-worthiness on their own, but come together quite nicely.

Edited February 6, 2017 by starcrunch061

[Karnacharya]

While this new system isn't perfect or in any way guaranteed to appease everyone, I think it's a tremendous step in the right direction. I for one, am all for it.  

[Se7en]

On 06.02.2017 at 4:40 PM, starcrunch061 said:

Most aggregate statistics are nothing more than new calculations based on single stats which are "broken" when considered alone. That's why they are taken in the aggregate.

 

For example, credit reports are made up of single measures, all of which fail to measure credit-worthiness on their own, but come together quite nicely.

 

And for trophies rarity there were two types of such aggregate stats based on different groups of people: game owners and dlc owners. Mixing them all together gets more favourable numbers, but loses initial meaning of rarity from new stat, ie 0.1% first stat or 100% second meant how many people from particular group got this or that trophy. And currently geometric mean, let’s say, 10% is just geometric mean. It doesn’t represent actual trophy rarity among any group 'cos no such group as geometric mean owners.

 

There is example with different calculation of GDP statistics on the previous page to further illustrate my point.

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Se7en

[starcrunch061]

12 hours ago, Se7en said:

 

And for trophies rarity there were two types of such aggregate stats based on different groups of people: game owners and dlc owners. Mixing them all together gets more favourable numbers, but loses initial meaning of rarity from new stat, ie 0.1% first stat or 100% second meant how many people from particular group got this or that trophy. And currently geometric mean, let’s say, 10% is just geometric mean. It doesn’t represent actual trophy rarity among any group 'cos no such group as geometric mean owners.

 

There is example with different calculation of GDP statistics on the previous page to further illustrate my point.

 

 

You're being pedantic, at best. And further, what I have emboldened is not the role of a statistic, anyway. 

 

Look, if your argument is, "There has been no reasonable test to show that this statistic is relevant", that's one thing. My own pedantic side might even agree with you. But your argument seems to hinge solely on the idea that the statistic doesn't represent a literal group of people. That's absurd. By your logic, baseball statistics like Pythagorean Expectation (together with its numerous improvements) are meaningless, solely because no team counts wins through the method.

Edited February 8, 2017 by starcrunch061
adding link

[Se7en]

2 hours ago, starcrunch061 said:

Look, if your argument is, "There has been no reasonable test to show that this statistic is relevant", that's one thing. My own pedantic side might even agree with you. But your argument seems to hinge solely on the idea that the statistic doesn't represent a literal group of people. That's absurd. By your logic, baseball statistics like Pythagorean Expectation (together with its numerous improvements) are meaningless, solely because no team counts wins through the method.

 

Not at all. Let’s have a look into meaning of each statistic in a nutshell. In case of trophy rarity it’s presumed to represent how rare trophy “A” among group of people “N”. Base game trophies conform to this precisely. DLC trophies now -- surprisingly not. Then in case of baseball Pythagorean expectation, well, it’s also in the name -- it shows expected win ratio. And yes, it might be more meaningless than the actual win ratio, in my opinion, but that’s not the point  The point is that’s just two kinds of stats with totally different purposes: one (trophy rarity) is to show factual data and the other (win expectation) is a mathematically calculated projection of sports results.

 

Moreover, there’re many other statistics that don’t represent a literal group of people and are still valid, as they serve different purposes. Eg, amount of precipitations in particular year in some area (country, continent) represents factual data from that year, while average annual amount from the same region for the last one hundred or more years can be used for prognosis purposes in future years. And back to trophies, personally I don’t see rarity statistic as some kind of prognosis how many players “should” have got trophy “A” from DLC. Because rarity of trophy “B” from base game calculated strictly in accordance with the name -- as rarity, not expectation.

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Se7en

[starcrunch061]

35 minutes ago, Se7en said:

 

Not at all. Let’s have a look into meaning of each statistic in a nutshell. In case of trophy rarity it’s presumed to represent how rare trophy “A” among group of people “N”. Base game trophies conform to this precisely. DLC trophies now -- surprisingly not. Then in case of baseball Pythagorean expectation, well, it’s also in the name -- it shows expected win ratio. And yes, it might be more meaningless than the actual win ratio, in my opinion, but that’s not the point  The point is that’s just two kinds of stats with totally different purposes: one (trophy rarity) is to show factual data and the other (win expectation) is a mathematically calculated projection of sports results.

 

Moreover, there’re many other statistics that don’t represent a literal group of people and are still valid, as they serve different purposes. Eg, amount of precipitations in particular year in some area (country, continent) represents factual data from that year, while average annual amount from the same region for the last one hundred or more years can be used for prognosis purposes in future years. And back to trophies, personally I don’t see rarity statistic as some kind of prognosis how many players “should” have got trophy “A” from DLC. Because rarity of trophy “B” from base game calculated strictly in accordance with the name -- as rarity, not expectation.

 

 

Sorry, but this is really pedantic now. 

 

So, if I understand, your dislike stems from the fact that the statistic purports to measure actual rarity, when in fact it measures a projected rarity? Because of course that's what the statistic for DLC is doing - it projects rarity now, rather than measures actual rarity. I would argue that this is exactly what a statistic for DLC should do, but that is simply my opinion. If you disagree (and given your final two sentences, you do), that's fine.

 

But again, that's pure opinion. It certainly doesn't negate the meaningfulness of the statistic at large to the community, or that it's nothing more than a "feel good" number. It just negates its meaning for you (in which case, I join with others in saying just ignore it).  

 

Oh, and you can have the last word here. I think I've argued this point far beyond my interest in it. 

Edited February 8, 2017 by starcrunch061

[daftprophet]

Hey Sly, thanks for keeping us informed! Neat update, though I personally never got peeved over how rare a trophy was.  This seem like a decent compromise to both sides of the spectrum.

[MMDE]

On 2/3/2017 at 1:33 AM, BeautifulTorment said:

This is a good compromise for both sides. Thanks sly.

 

Compromise for both sides? What are those two sides? =P

 

AFAIK, one side wants owners of the game to count as owners of the DLCs too. I know I just want consistency and I don't want invented numbers. How does this reach a compromise between the two sides? It doesn't do anything to close in on either, but instead equal or further away from both sides from where it already was at.

 

Whom it does make happy is those who just don't want to see their handful of trophies have 100% rarity.

Edited February 8, 2017 by MMDE

[Se7en]

38 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

But again, that's pure opinion. It certainly doesn't negate the meaningfulness of the statistic at large to the community, or that it's nothing more than a "feel good" number. It just negates its meaning for you (in which case, I join with others in saying just ignore it). 

 

Generally my beef is not with meaningfulness per se of new dlc trophy rarity projection (let’s call it so) or lack of it, but rather with how inconsistent trophy rarity is calculated for base game trophies (actual rarity in pure sense) and DLC trophies (estimated figures).

 

Also look at any other trophy related stat on this site -- each value is based on factual data and is not projected. We have earned trophies in our profiles, not estimated. The only place where potential trophies can be found is trophy advisor, although even amount of unearned trophies is precise number for every gamer, not some vague estimate average. So calculating all stats on web site based on factual data and one particular stat based on estimation is kinda inconsistent too.

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Se7en

[madbuk]

4 hours ago, MMDE said:

 

Compromise for both sides? What are those two sides? =P

 

AFAIK, one side wants owners of the game to count as owners of the DLCs too. I know I just want consistency and I don't want invented numbers. How does this reach a compromise between the two sides? It doesn't do anything to close in on either, but instead equal or further away from both sides from where it already was at.

 

Whom it does make happy is those who just don't want to see their handful of trophies have 100% rarity.

But the method before this was the one using the invented numbers, yet you were perfectly fine with it? What?

 

This is a compromise because it caters to both parties. It's not a perfect solution imo - the perfect solution would be counting all base game owners as DLC owners (because they do have that DLC on their trophy list), but this is a compromise I can live with. It's so much better than the garbage that was had right before this method.

[MMDE]

10 hours ago, madbuk said:

But the method before this was the one using the invented numbers, yet you were perfectly fine with it? What?

 

You've been explained this a million times... *smh* Do you really need it explained one more time?

 

We only used confirmed numbers. We didn't count someone as having played the DLC unless they had a trophy for it, because that was the only way to know if they had played the DLC. Furthermore, it is consistent with how we don't count it on someone's profile when they haven't earned a trophy for a game.

 

I didn't actually think this update was something that was being taken seriously, else I'd definitely break it apart and give some feedback on it. So here's some of that.

 

What this update is going to do is say that the number of people who has played a DLC is somewhere between the amount of people who has played the game and who we've confirmed has played the DLC. But, where we now set the number is just arbitrarily in the middle. Chances are that if someone has played a DLC, they got trophies for it. This is not always the case, but I think it's more likely than not in average. So, placing the number in the middle, between amount of people who has played the game and who has got a trophy for a DLC would  be skewed. It should be much closer to the amount of people who has earned a trophy for the DLC, in average.

 

I for one does not like that it's based on averages and not on confirmed numbers, but at the very least make it more reflective of reality.

 

EDIT:

A good example of how wrong this new system is all the PS+ games that has paid DLCs. A majority of those paid DLCs will be ultra rare or very rare now.

Edited February 9, 2017 by MMDE

[voleman79]

Edited July 28, 2018 by voleman79

[MMDE]

2 hours ago, voleman79 said:

 

Yes and thats the way how it should be. Many players start the game from PS+ but only few get all trophies. Same goes not only for paid DLC but also for platinum trophy which will be much more rare if game hits PS+. It shows how rare that trophy is, not how easy or hard.

 

Just suck it up and move on.

 

What are you even talking about? Very few plays a DLC without getting at least one trophy from them. They shouldn't count unless they have played that which can get them the trophy.

Edited February 9, 2017 by MMDE

[madbuk]

34 minutes ago, MMDE said:

 

What are you even talking about? Very few plays a DLC without getting at least one trophy from them. They shouldn't count unless they have played that which can get them the trophy.

I have played Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. This game allows me to earn trophies on the base game and the DLC. The fact I don't own the DLC is irrelevant - I can own it, it's on my profile, and it's a part of the game I'm playing.

This applies to every game. If you have played The Last of Us, you have started playing the game which lets you get the Grounded trophies. Those Grounded trophies have been added to your trophy list.

 

I mean let's take this absurd statement a step further, shall we? I'm playing Shadow of the Colossus. I haven't reached Colossus #10 yet. As such, I haven't yet attempted that boss fight. So why should I be counted towards the rarity? I haven't played what can get me the trophy, after all. 

 

 

100% of base game owners have the DLC trophies on their trophy list. As such, using that number wouldn't be using made up numbers. It would be using accurate numbers. The method you seem to prefer is making up numbers - it wants you to believe it is based off DLC owners (which would be the wrong way to calculate it even if it did work), but that's not what is happening. It's based off DLC owners who have one trophy. You may not believe it but there are plenty of people who buy DLC in preparation and maybe never get around to actually doing it. As such, the "DLC owners" number will always be completely made up and wrong. And, since you're so afraid of those nasty made up numbers, you should be against that, right?

 

This new method is MUCH closer to being accurate than the nonsense we had before lol.

[MMDE]

52 minutes ago, madbuk said:

I have played Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. This game allows me to earn trophies on the base game and the DLC. The fact I don't own the DLC is irrelevant - I can own it, it's on my profile, and it's a part of the game I'm playing.

This applies to every game. If you have played The Last of Us, you have started playing the game which lets you get the Grounded trophies. Those Grounded trophies have been added to your trophy list.

 

I mean let's take this absurd statement a step further, shall we? I'm playing Shadow of the Colossus. I haven't reached Colossus #10 yet. As such, I haven't yet attempted that boss fight. So why should I be counted towards the rarity? I haven't played what can get me the trophy, after all. 

 

 

100% of base game owners have the DLC trophies on their trophy list. As such, using that number wouldn't be using made up numbers. It would be using accurate numbers. The method you seem to prefer is making up numbers - it wants you to believe it is based off DLC owners (which would be the wrong way to calculate it even if it did work), but that's not what is happening. It's based off DLC owners who have one trophy. You may not believe it but there are plenty of people who buy DLC in preparation and maybe never get around to actually doing it. As such, the "DLC owners" number will always be completely made up and wrong. And, since you're so afraid of those nasty made up numbers, you should be against that, right?

 

This new method is MUCH closer to being accurate than the nonsense we had before lol.

 

I don't bother explain this to you more times. You clearly don't understand statistics. You are making up numbers when they are not confirmed, and is commonly known as a guesstimate. If we're going to make an educated guess, it should at the very least be closer to amount of people who has earned a trophy for the DLC than those who has only done so for the game. Instead of in the middle, it should be 50% closer to the amount who has earned at least one trophy in the game.

 

Just to iterate. You are making up numbers when you base them on something that you don't have supporting data for. If you say everyone who has played the game has played the DLC too, you're making up numbers, because you know that just because you've played the game, that doesn't mean you've played the DLC. Saying that the number of people who has played the DLC is somewhere between the amount of people who has earned a trophy for the DLC and who has for the main game is true, especially if inclusive between. But that doesn't mean it's in the middle, so again, you'd be making a somewhat estimated educated guess, in other words, making up numbers.

Edited February 9, 2017 by MMDE

[Se7en]

1 hour ago, MMDE said:

Just to iterate. You are making up numbers when you base them on something that you don't have supporting data for. If you say everyone who has played the game has played the DLC too, you're making up numbers, because you know that just because you've played the game, that doesn't mean you've played the DLC.

 

If we apply the same logic to “DLC owners” quantity, it should also be considered made up number, because if you say only who has trophy from DLC is the owner of this content, you’re excluding everyone else who has DLC and played it but hasn’t earned any trophy yet.

 

Moreover, it’s a slippery slope, as by that logic we also shouldn’t count all not-PSPlus gamers into trophy rarity for online trophies in PS4 paid games before they have at least one online trophy in such title. Because, you know, there’s no proof they have actually played the content, which is locked behind PSPlus subscription paywall by default.

 

So as there is no way to determine exact number of people who played separate part of game content from all gamers who played that game (and have the corresponding trophy list on their profile), DLC or any other type of trophy and their stats should be treated as base game trophies and stats are and calculated accordingly from all game owners.

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Se7en
typo

[voleman79]

Edited July 28, 2018 by voleman79