New display name

Rarity Leaderboard

437 posts in this topic

48 minutes ago, HusKy said:

 

Not done, but it's pretty close with Danny, I'm fairly sure it will end at a couple of hundred thousand points below.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have been away from this thread  a long time but its very nice to see some new work here, which formula are you using MMDE?

 

People will complain surely, everyone wants the formula that make them number one...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, HrodFireyeah said:

Hope the private profiles (aw no trophies here guys) won't be allowed on the new leaderboard as there were in the testing one...

 

https://psnprofiles.com/leaderboard/rarity

 

PD MMDE can you scan me too?

 

I've scanned quite a bit more, and you're at 6th atm, with 3270829 points. Also, yes, that means 7 people are above Hakoom so far :'D

EDIT:
one currently being scanned is likely surpassing you by some few points (pafff1979spain, beat you by 10k points).

aaaand there another surpassed you DarkSamuraii-.

 

Danny still on top though.

Edited by MMDE
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know if I understood this thread right, but if its possible, can you scan my profile as well?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, quickfoozlle said:

I dont know if I understood this thread right, but if its possible, can you scan my profile as well?

 

I added you and some few others more active members who has shown some interest etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TheHarryGamer99 said:

May I be scanned?

 

You ended up above ikemenzi and ferryjan among others. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's so much meta data available you can pretty much make leaderboards out of anything. TT kind of scratches this itch, but as many would agree the overall design of PSNP is much nicer.

I hope with your help @MMDEthis will eventually become a real thing and maybe open the door for more, much requested features on PSNP? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite the interesting thread I must say. I have many unused games I haven't played just yet including the UR games. I'll keep going and strive my very best. :)

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The real question is then, does the above list reflect what people want from a rarity leaderboard? Does it favor "big" accounts too much or too little? Are people properly rewarded for the most rare trophies? It is entirely possible to scale this to where 0% is worth 7.5k or 10k instead of 5k, or make less rare worth more or less (steeper curve). Maybe it shouldn't give any points to above 20 or 25% rarity, instead of 50% as it is now?

 

It takes me literally seconds to get new leaderboard if I change the math function now that I got the data.

 

Just want to throw it out there, I really don't like what PSNTL is doing (no idea what it is, but it seems to me it might take into consideration your average rarity or something, or at the very least award the very rarest of trophies an unreasonable amount of points), and this is totally different from what TT is doing (normal points + extra rarity points). PSNTL has just become about if you've done a handful of specific games. Even if that's all you got, congratulations, you're top of the world. I kinda like that TT has just traded their normal leaderboard with their own slightly adjusted, really just a bit more "fairly valued", leaderboard. Makes no sense 20 bronze trophies that takes a 100 hours or is 10/10 difficulty are worth the same as one 1-5 min EZPZ platinum (just the platinum itself, not including the other trophies you get at the same time).

Edited by MMDE
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MMDE said:

It is entirely possible to scale this to where 0% is worth 7.5k or 10k instead of 5k, or make less rare worth more or less (steeper curve). Maybe it shouldn't give any points to above 20 or 25% rarity, instead of 50% as it is now?

 

It takes me literally seconds to get new leaderboard if I change the math function now that I got the data.

 

Can I ask why you won't share what function you're using to do your calculations?

 

It seems completely backwards to me to approach this from the perspective of "Who do we want to be on top? Let's build a function that makes that happen.", which is what is being done right now.

 

Back when this thread started, the perspective was "What mathematical properties should the rarity leaderboard have?", which makes way more sense to me. Sly initially said that he wanted a trophy at 5% rarity to be worth double a trophy at 10% rarity, which is worth double a trophy at 20% rarity, and so on (which led to the function Points = 500/ Rarity). People are of course welcome to agree or disagree with that particular requirement, but at least it's based on something remotely objective.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number 250 seems like an auspicious number! This list is definitely more righterer. After all, I'm not at the bottom of it. I feel like if you adapted the algorithm to include important metrics like 'most inappropriate sense of humour' or 'most politically opinionated' that would be better as I'd have a chance of placing first place then :) 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NathanielJohn said:

 

Can I ask why you won't share what function you're using to do your calculations?

 

It seems completely backwards to me to approach this from the perspective of "Who do we want to be on top? Let's build a function that makes that happen.", which is what is being done right now.

 

Back when this thread started, the perspective was "What mathematical properties should the rarity leaderboard have?", which makes way more sense to me. Sly initially said that he wanted a trophy at 5% rarity to be worth double a trophy at 10% rarity, which is worth double a trophy at 20% rarity, and so on (which led to the function Points = 500/ Rarity). People are of course welcome to agree or disagree with that particular requirement, but at least it's based on something remotely objective.

 

Because the whole point of all this is to create a leaderboard that satisfies the specific people who are continually calling for it.

There wouldn't be much point in MMDE doing all that work if those people were still going to complain about the functionality afterwards.

 

The maths has to be based on ensuring those specific profiles come out on top - or at least high enough to placate them.

 

MMDE said so himself yesterday in his response to me:

 

On 24/03/2021 at 1:06 PM, DrBloodmoney said:

 

[SNIP]

 

Not to be facetious, but...

...wouldn't the simplest way to settle this type of thread once and for all be to simply look at who the are the 10 or 20 biggest, most vocal proponents of a custom leaderboard, and just tailor the algorithm in such a way as to apply such massively exponential multiplying factors to the commonalities of their specific profiles, that all of them end up at the top of it?

 

 

 

On 24/03/2021 at 1:18 PM, MMDE said:

 

The last part of what you write is kind of what I aim for here. I'm making a system I think makes sense, and then seeing if it does accomplish what it sets out to do, and I'm hoping to get feedback from vocal proponents. I've talked to a couple, at least one I talked to seemed very happy.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MMDE said:

The real question is then, does the above list reflect what people want from a rarity leaderboard? Does it favors "big" accounts too much or too little? Are people properly rewarded for the most rare trophies? It is entirely possible to scale this to where 0% is worth 7.5k or 10k instead of 5k, or make less rare worth more or less (steeper curve). Maybe it shouldn't give any points to above 20 or 25% rarity, instead of 50% as it is now?

 

It takes me literally seconds to get new leaderboard if I change the math function now that I got the data.

 

Just want to throw it out there, I really don't like what PSNTL is doing (no idea what it is, but it seems to me it might take into consideration your average rarity or something, or at the very least award the very rarest of trophies an unreasonable amount of points), and this is totally different from what TT is doing (normal points + extra rarity points). PSNTL has just become about if you've done a handful of specific games. Even if that's all you got, congratulations, you're top of the world. I kinda like that TT has just traded their normal leaderboard with their own slightly adjusted, really just a bit more "fairly valued", leaderboard. Makes no sense 20 bronze trophies that takes a 100 hours or is 10/10 difficulty are worth the same as one 1-5 min EZPZ platinum (just the platinum itself, not including the other trophies you get at the same time).

It doesn't favour 'big' accounts too much. After all, if you can dedicate lots of time and effort to a particular activity, you will generally be more successful at it! 

 

In my opinion, every trophy should have a value above 0- even if it is a very easy and common trophy. 

 

We don't want this to turn into an exercise in 'EZPZ bashing'. All trophies earned legitimately have value. 

 

It's probably too hard to do, but factoring time to earn trophies would be very interesting. 

 

Factoring in individual trophy difficulty would be even more difficult, but very interesting. Rarity is a crude but reasonable proxy for difficulty. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please scan my account.

 

thanks 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Because the whole point of all this is to create a leaderboard that satisfies the specific people who are continually calling for it.

There wouldn't be much point in MMDE doing all that work if those people were still going to complain about the functionality afterwards.

 

The maths has to be based on ensuring those specific profiles come out on top - or at least high enough to placate them.

 

You didn't exactly refute his point. If that's the reasoning behind it, it's completely backwards. Might as well just make a leaderboard that just puts these people on top without actually checking anything.

 

It's not reasonable to provide feedback based on if we think the right people are on top, instead of on what it actually does.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see some progress is being made. Think this will be implemented this year?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, NamoPh said:

 

You didn't exactly refute his point. If that's the reasoning behind it, it's completely backwards. Might as well just make a leaderboard that just puts these people on top without actually checking anything.

 

It's not reasonable to provide feedback based on if we think the right people are on top, instead of on what it actually does.

 

That's because I'm not refuting his point - I'm reiterating it - or at least, reiterating that he is correct. Whether I agree that's what should happen is by the by.

 

I'm pointing out that when I made a tongue-in -cheek joke about how this whole exercise is really just a smokescreen to provide a fake leaderboard to satisfy a few people, the humour in what was saying was missed - largely because my joke - as it turned out - was, in fact, an accurate description 😄

Edited by DrBloodmoney
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

fake leaderboard

 

Why is rarity leaderboard a "fake" leaderboard? I don't understand your point or why are you even engaging in the conversation at all.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, NathanielJohn said:

 

Can I ask why you won't share what function you're using to do your calculations?

 

It seems completely backwards to me to approach this from the perspective of "Who do we want to be on top? Let's build a function that makes that happen.", which is what is being done right now.

 

Back when this thread started, the perspective was "What mathematical properties should the rarity leaderboard have?", which makes way more sense to me. Sly initially said that he wanted a trophy at 5% rarity to be worth double a trophy at 10% rarity, which is worth double a trophy at 20% rarity, and so on (which led to the function Points = 500/ Rarity). People are of course welcome to agree or disagree with that particular requirement, but at least it's based on something remotely objective.

 

Pretty sure I've explained how the function works before. It's not particularly useful to see the exact values, as it's generated by an equation based on the criteria I've set and my own understanding of how growth in functions can be manipulated. I'm asking about the criteria, and then we can judge the result.

 

48 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

That's because I'm not refuting his point - I'm reiterating it - or at least, reiterating that he is correct. Whether I agree that's what should happen is by the by.

 

I'm pointing out that when I made a tongue-in -cheek joke about how this whole exercise is really just a smokescreen to provide a fake leaderboard to satisfy a few people, the humour in what was saying was missed - largely because my joke - as it turned out - was, in fact, an accurate description 😄

 

It's not fake. It's just a leaderboard where you sort users based on a different criteria than (in some cases, estimated) psn level.

 

I just want to find a sweet point of calculating what a lot of people want to sort profiles by, then we can use it to sort all the accounts and that becomes a new leaderboard. It's not going to replace the old one, but I'm guessing Sly would allow the option to add the values to trophy cards. You can adjust how it should look and what data etc to display yourself. Look at my trophy card, notice how the game icons just go off screen? Can't do that anymore I think, but I found a way to set mine to show last 99 games. 😂 Point is, you can adjust what it should show based on an individual account's settings, and I'm sure this leaderboard's rank can be used for that too.

Edited by MMDE
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

38 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

That's because I'm not refuting his point - I'm reiterating it - or at least, reiterating that he is correct. Whether I agree that's what should happen is by the by.

 

I'm pointing out that when I made a tongue-in -cheek joke about how this whole exercise is really just a smokescreen to provide a fake leaderboard to satisfy a few people, the humour in what was saying was missed - largely because my joke - as it turned out - was, in fact, an accurate description 1f604.png

I genuinely don't understand why you keep posting the same thing. It's either a bad joke or an inaccurate description. 

 

In both cases, repeating yourself every hour in this thread will not suddenly make it more funny or true.

 

It is just a leaderboard that sorts users by different criteria. Get over yourself, please. 

 

Edit: I guess the real point of my post here is to suggest people stop shitting on others who are actively trying to improve what some could call a useful feature.

Edited by BeautifulTorment
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.