Rarity Leaderboard

[D-E-U-S-X]

I look forward to it when it launches at the same time as Cyberpunk in 2077

[B1rvine]

13 hours ago, dmland12 said:

I'm on board with it.  What are the chances that something like this gets implemented?

 

7 hours ago, zajac9999 said:

0.001%

 

Nah, pretty good chance. As I mentioned a few days ago, the staff are engaged in discussions with Sly about this. We're all giving our input etc.  

[Roronora_Zoro666]

I’m still waiting on the demotion for easy plats to be implemented first and foremost.

[sepheroithisgod]

Crazy that this still hasn't been implemented.

[DaivRules]

Just now, sepheroithisgod said:

Crazy that this still hasn't been implemented.

 

I don't know if it's so crazy. I've been playing around with an SQL database and trying to figure out solutions to assign point values and such and it's quite a challenge. What makes you think it's so simple to implement?

[Vergil]

8 hours ago, zajac9999 said:

 

0.001% ?

Now that's rarity! 

[zajac9999]

14 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

I don't know if it's so crazy. I've been playing around with an SQL database and trying to figure out solutions to assign point values and such and it's quite a challenge. What makes you think it's so simple to implement?

 

I mean its been over 3.5 years since the OP was posted, if it was any sort of a priority it would have been done by now.

[Tsundokuist]

Wouldn’t it make sense for rarity leaderboard calculations to be +/- possibly with users or games having a 0 floor?
 

e.g. if the average rarity of all trophies earned is say 70% (it’s likely higher?) and Game A and Game B each have 5 trophies:

Game A: 
Bronze: 90% = -20

Bronze 75% = -5

Silver 50% = +20

Silver 30% = +50

Gold 1% = + 500

 

= 565 (The games with actually rare trophies move you up the leaderboard)

Game B:

 

Bronze: 95% = -25%

Bronze: 90% = -20%

Silver: 85% = -15%
Silver 80% = -20%
Gold 70% = 0

 

= 0 or -80 (if you want people to fall down the leaderboard instead of padding their “rarity” figure with the sheer volume of common trophies they earn)

Edited November 11, 2020 by Tsundokuist

[sepheroithisgod]

21 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

I don't know if it's so crazy. I've been playing around with an SQL database and trying to figure out solutions to assign point values and such and it's quite a challenge. What makes you think it's so simple to implement?

Never said it was simple, but the thread's 3 years old and other websites have different leaderboard options available.

[DaivRules]

17 minutes ago, zajac9999 said:

 

I mean its been over 3.5 years since the OP was posted, if it was any sort of a priority it would have been done by now.

 

9 minutes ago, sepheroithisgod said:

Never said it was simple, but the thread's 3 years old and other websites have different leaderboard options available.

 

Well let me predict that it's taken this long because whatever is rolled out is going to be heavily criticized as not what people wanted.

 

I think it was a matter of rolling out something just to have it and it not accomplishing what it's supposed to (accompanied by all the positive feedback about how it could be improved, I'm sure), versus shelving it until a better implementation could be found. 

 

[jayboo1991]

On 10.11.2020 at 4:51 AM, MMDE said:

I gave it more thought!

 

I wrote a math function that would only give you points between 0% to 50%, and you'd get from 1 to 5000 points! Huge range in terms of points, this gives you some value for lesser rare, but not much, and spam fest games are not worth anything at all. The trophy has to at least be a little bit rare to count! Some wanted 50%, so I started at 50%. It has a pretty steep curve that really takes off near the end, and I feel this actually ended up pretty fair. I had to play around a bit with the retardation rate, but it ended up at a pretty nice number. The function isn't the simplest, but it's actually surprisingly clean. If someone wants some change to it, like if it should be steeper or not, I can play around with it a bit more, but it does take some while, as there's a lot of math involved.

 

 

If people are actually interested in a rarity leaderboard, we gotta agree on something first! 

I am totally in for it, but not only for a rarity leaderboard.

Would love to see that for the main leaderboard as well.

 

In fact, I would at least give some points for easy platins, otherwise I can hear people saying, that games like Spiderman or Deep Black are work as well and so there is at least a bit honor for it

 

100-90,01% = 0,1

90-80,01% = 0,2

80-70,01% = 0,4

70-60,01% = 0,6

60-50,01% = 0,8

The rest is perfectly calculated by you and I am totally fine with it.

 

BR Jay

[DaivRules]

5 hours ago, jayboo1991 said:

I am totally in for it, but not only for a rarity leaderboard.

Would love to see that for the main leaderboard as well.

Why should the main leaderboard change? It’s whoever has the most trophy points based on the value Sony gives each trophy. It’s as basic as it gets and doesn’t need to be changed. 

[ProfBambam55]

On 11/9/2020 at 10:51 PM, MMDE said:

if people are actually interested in a rarity leaderboard, we gotta agree on something first! ...

if we're lucky, I'll be the only one to say that, while mathematically consistent, the table doesn't make much sense...I couldn't care much less about this leaderboard though so hopefully the majority will like it and it will be implemented...should add, I'm a big numbers fan so was hoping to see some stimulating new equations...tough thing trying to scale percentages with accurate representations...it's almost inevitable that either the leaderboard doesn't change much from the total score one that we have now or that, as with the table above, we start injecting random multipliers to create an opinion of what should be considered rare...

[jayboo1991]

46 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

Why should the main leaderboard change? It’s whoever has the most trophy points based on the value Sony gives each trophy. It’s as basic as it gets and doesn’t need to be changed. 

 

Companys like Ratalaika earn their money mostly cause people are trying to climb up the leaderboard with only easy games.

The Main Leaderboard is definitly the biggest motivation bringer for all people here, who play those games.

If the Main Leaderboard includes a factor of rarity and easy games getting way more useless as a trophy whore, I am sure, that people would change in different categories.

1 They start playing harder games

2 They would play way more for fun

3 Some will play those games - but definitly not every stack and more meant for fun as well - maybe they enjoy them a bit more, if they play them completly (and not only for platinum).

 

Did you ever talk to people, who play those games every day for weeks/months/years?

I did - and a big part from them don't play them for fun - they play them only for the leaderboard.

To be serious - the Leaderboard isn't much worth, if it's just up on how many trash games you play.

Players shouldn't play trash the whole time and feed those companys with money.

If you remember back on PS3 times, there was a Hannah Montannah, Megamind and Terminator  and for those games you had to play at least some hours and those was fun.

I think, PSNProfiles could show a bit responsibility in this case, since I am sure, that people's motivation changes, when the Main Leaderboard requirements change.

Sad enough, that Sony doesn't give a sh** about it and let every game release 6 or 8 times in different countrys + consoles.

 

And don't worry, I am no Ratalaika Hater or anything like that .. I play those games as well - BUT I mostly play hard, challenging and good games and I feel kind of sad, when I hear people telling me, that they are so tired from playing easy games, but the leaderboard is important ?

[DaivRules]

@jayboo1991 Well... that’s certainly one way of looking at things and I’ll just thank you for your explanation. 

[MMDE]

4 hours ago, ProfBambam55 said:

if we're lucky, I'll be the only one to say that, while mathematically consistent, the table doesn't make much sense...I couldn't care much less about this leaderboard though so hopefully the majority will like it and it will be implemented...should add, I'm a big numbers fan so was hoping to see some stimulating new equations...tough thing trying to scale percentages with accurate representations...it's almost inevitable that either the leaderboard doesn't change much from the total score one that we have now or that, as with the table above, we start injecting random multipliers to create an opinion of what should be considered rare...

 

Hehe, if you know what I did, it's all cool. I was thinking about adding another accelerator to have different middle pace.

 

This is with a slightly steeper graph:

points(50) = 1

^ Yeah, I don't really like this one tbh. Making it steeper didn't really fix my issues, so I should add something else.

Edited November 12, 2020 by MMDE

[MMDE]

On 11/11/2020 at 2:52 AM, dmland12 said:

 

I'm on board with it.  What are the chances that something like this gets implemented?

 

Vastly greater than you think.

 

13 hours ago, ProfBambam55 said:

if we're lucky, I'll be the only one to say that, while mathematically consistent, the table doesn't make much sense...I couldn't care much less about this leaderboard though so hopefully the majority will like it and it will be implemented...should add, I'm a big numbers fan so was hoping to see some stimulating new equations...tough thing trying to scale percentages with accurate representations...it's almost inevitable that either the leaderboard doesn't change much from the total score one that we have now or that, as with the table above, we start injecting random multipliers to create an opinion of what should be considered rare...

 

Math isn't my expertise, even if I've studied it a bit, it would be very much appreciated with some good suggestions. I got a general idea how to progress towards something I would personally prefer, but I got too much to do these days. The current one is fairly simple, and if you've studied math, eh, you probably know exactly how this one came to be. ? It would be preferable to keep it simple, though I get you may need to add another joint to make it slow down more in the middle part. I suspect it's done through adjusting the function at an acceleration level by having two joints. Those equations should be easy for you to set up I'd imagine. AKA one dies too soon, where the other goes slow and steady with lower numbers and keeps it above 1 for the flooring until it hits 50. I can already see the equation in my head though, so will try to do it after work today!  

Edited November 12, 2020 by MMDE

[AJ_Radio]

On 11/10/2020 at 2:23 PM, Sinthoras_96 said:

Whatever you do about the rarity Leaderboard: I'm all for it. 

I would also like to see some changes to the main Leaderboard. Companies like Ratalaika make a fortune out of psnp. Without the Leaderboard here, nobody would buy these crap games. 

I couldn’t of said it any better myself. 
 

This website NEEDS to bring back the average rarity statistic on the MAIN profile page, like it used to be before the website overhaul in 2017.

[OpenScars]

On 11/11/2020 at 11:34 PM, jayboo1991 said:

Did you ever talk to people, who play those games every day for weeks/months/years?

I did - and a big part from them don't play them for fun - they play them only for the leaderboard.

To be serious - the Leaderboard isn't much worth, if it's just up on how many trash games you play.

Players shouldn't play trash the whole time and feed those companys with money.

If you remember back on PS3 times, there was a Hannah Montannah, Megamind and Terminator  and for those games you had to play at least some hours and those was fun.

 OI!!! Lay off Terminator!! But, I completely agree with you. I chose purposely to avoid 'trophy whore' games. BUT, I found myself near the Top 12,000... so I completed a few quick platinum's. On one side, I'm happy that I'm at the 12,000 border, but the flips side... I've used 'whorey' games to close that gap...

[MMDE]

I attempted another algorithm, idk if any better?

 

And sure, the output could have used format instead of what I did. Silly me! ?

Edited November 16, 2020 by MMDE

[Rally-Vincent---]

On 12.11.2020 at 0:34 AM, jayboo1991 said:

 

Companys like Ratalaika earn their money mostly cause people are trying to climb up the leaderboard with only easy games.

The Main Leaderboard is definitly the biggest motivation bringer for all people here, who play those games.

If the Main Leaderboard includes a factor of rarity and easy games getting way more useless as a trophy whore, I am sure, that people would change in different categories.

1 They start playing harder games

2 They would play way more for fun

3 Some will play those games - but definitly not every stack and more meant for fun as well - maybe they enjoy them a bit more, if they play them completly (and not only for platinum).

 

Did you ever talk to people, who play those games every day for weeks/months/years?

I did - and a big part from them don't play them for fun - they play them only for the leaderboard.

To be serious - the Leaderboard isn't much worth, if it's just up on how many trash games you play.

Players shouldn't play trash the whole time and feed those companys with money.

If you remember back on PS3 times, there was a Hannah Montannah, Megamind and Terminator  and for those games you had to play at least some hours and those was fun.

I think, PSNProfiles could show a bit responsibility in this case, since I am sure, that people's motivation changes, when the Main Leaderboard requirements change.

Sad enough, that Sony doesn't give a sh** about it and let every game release 6 or 8 times in different countrys + consoles.

 

And don't worry, I am no Ratalaika Hater or anything like that .. I play those games as well - BUT I mostly play hard, challenging and good games and I feel kind of sad, when I hear people telling me, that they are so tired from playing easy games, but the leaderboard is important ?

 

 

Really heartbreaking. Funnily enough, nobody seems to complain that the leaderboard is a life-time achivement, and no player who starts now ever has a chance to climb the ranks without those games, and even if those "easy games" would not exist, they still would never be ablt to get into the top 100. But that seems to be okay - cementing the top positions for themselves just becaue they started 12 yeras ealier. But low and behold, if someone new dares to close in with Ratalaika games, then something must be done. Press the thumb onto the scales to lift the other side higher.

 

 

[A1rPun]

On 11/11/2020 at 4:51 PM, DaivRules said:

I don't know if it's so crazy. I've been playing around with an SQL database and trying to figure out solutions to assign point values and such and it's quite a challenge. What makes you think it's so simple to implement?

This. A good rarity system is not simple. Sony let's developers assign bronze/silver/gold/plat values to the trophies so that is also a variable you have to account for I think. I mean there could be a simple system to get started with but you will definitely see a pattern with people playing pinball games on top for example.

 

A good point system IMO is the one on SteamHunters (It's steam I know but for example) https://steamhunters.com/leaderboards/2020

Assigns points to achievements based on rarity, players playing the game & amount of total achievements. Sure there are more variables to account for to get a nice algorithm but these are a few I know are used.

[UndamagedVirus]

1 hour ago, Rally-Vincent--- said:

 

 

Really heartbreaking. Funnily enough, nobody seems to complain that the leaderboard is a life-time achivement, and no player who starts now ever has a chance to climb the ranks without those games, and even if those "easy games" would not exist, they still would never be ablt to get into the top 100. But that seems to be okay - cementing the top positions for themselves just becaue they started 12 yeras ealier. But low and behold, if someone new dares to close in with Ratalaika games, then something must be done. Press the thumb onto the scales to lift the other side higher.

 

 

Couldn't agree more buddy. 
I recently started Trophy Hunting & I found being near the bottom of the leaderboards demotivating so I bought a bunch of easy plats to complete & get me into the swing of trophy hunting (using guides, being quick yet still enjoying the game) I enjoyed doing them I found some really good games doing it. 
As you said without these games you cannot really climb the leaderboards & get in a good "starting" position. 
We are all here to have fun, so what if someone wants to play Road Bustle & someone wants to play Fortnite for the plat. 
All the same to me

 

[MMDE]

If we look at what I posted 4 hours ago, it's as simple as a math function you would write in math class, though there is an operator used there you normally wouldn't use, though it is a completely normal math operator like addition. Nothing programmatic, and could be done in SQL queries and or most programming languages. The one I posted 4 hours ago is a bit more complicated than the first one, as this one has two different accelerators with different max, and different when they min.  Doesn't need to be more complicated, and preferably it shouldn't be IMO.

 

I know some suggest (trophy value) +/- (rarity value), but this I feel is completely pointless, or rather, it should be completely pointless, if you get my point.  The rarity leaderboard should have no real connection to the psn points leaderboard. It's all about rewarding rare trophies, and many of those can be bronze trophies. They shouldn't be worth less just because of that. A platinum shouldn't be worth more, in fact, some argue we shouldn't even value platinums. I think that would be a mistake too, as the platinum is often the collected effort of all the other ones, and while, yes, it makes a single rare trophy for a trophy list worth the double when you also get the same or more rarity for the platinum. The platinum often not being a trophy you earn on it's own, just something you get for doing the rest.

 

I know some wants it simple, like x points for a specific range or rarity. Sure, this is simple, but IMO a 6% should be worth more than a 10%, a 2% should be worth quite a bit more than a 5% and so on.

 

Some wants to award all trophies with some value, like, maybe just a tiny bit for a 90% rarity one, but many don't want to reward any of this at all. I totally get both views. The problem with rewarding things like 80% rarity trophies is that a great amount of trophies could easily make up for rare ones, and that would defeat the point of a rarity leaderboard. I initially thought the same when I went for a range from 1 to 5000, where 90% and above would be 1 point, but it just seems like we value amount and not rarity then. I hear some begging for them to be worth 0.1 points. It would be the same as the range going from 1 to 50000. This is not impossible, but I know a lot of people who really complain about lack of rarity leaderboard really don't want those to count.  This is why I set my range from 50% and down, and some may even want it even lower, but I think at 50%, and valuing them very little is a nice compromise. We're far away from the super fast and easy games then, and you'll actually have to play more time consuming or difficult games to rank up on the rarity leaderboard.

 

Unlike what some of you seem to think based on the most recent post here, this isn't some attempt to make it harder for newcomers, but rather, it's actually bad for a lot of top accounts that spams easy trophies all day. You playing some few more difficult games have a much easier time to catch up. Just a 50% cut-off renders so many of these people's trophies worthless, because all they've cared about is spamming easy trophies. This is supposed to value quality over amount.

Edited November 16, 2020 by MMDE

[Rally-Vincent---]

7 minutes ago, MMDE said:

Unlike what some of you seem to think based on the most recent post here, this isn't some attempt to make it harder for newcomers, but rather, it's actually bad for a lot of top accounts that spams easy trophies all day. You playing some few more difficult games have a much easier time to catch up. Just a 50% cut-off renders so many of these people's trophies worthless, because all they've cared about is spamming easy trophies. This is supposed to value quality over amount.

 

The current #100 has over 17.000 trophies that are 50% or lower. Number #99 has over 15.000. # 98 has around 20.000.

 

The flaw of the leaderboard is not the rarity of different trophies. I's that some people started running 12 years ago, and no one will bridge that gap if you remove the only thing that will give the latecomers some leverage. Instead of pursuing a bias against - official - trophies, fix the leaderboard in a way that give people a real competition. Make it a yearly leaderboard, from Jan.1st to Dec. 31st - then I'd see some reason to weigh rarity, as some trophies just take so much ölonger to acquire. Biut as long as a leaderboard spans the whole time since 2008, all the suggestions is downputting certain games for no other reasons that "I don't like them".