New display name

Rarity Leaderboard

441 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, JoesusHCrust said:

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. 

 

I started out with the opinion that all, if not most, trophies should have some value. However, I do see the inherit issue with it, it valuing 100 times a 99% trophy the same as one that's 20%. No matter how little it is, and I've come to realize it's just gonna end up wrong no matter what then IMO. It also makes sense to drop them from the perspective that they're simply not rare, and this is a rarity leaderboard. They're worth so little they don't even count. A cool aspect about this is how you don't need anywhere near as extreme values for the really rare trophies, which just ends in a leaderboard similar to PSNTL, which I find totally misleading.

 

Many people I've talked to about this, including Sly, pretty much set it as a requirement that common trophies should not count towards a rarity score. Many of these people are the ones who really want this feature too, so it makes sense to at least deliver what the people requesting this wants and not something else.

Edited by MMDE
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, HusKy said:

 

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

 

36 minutes ago, MMDE said:

 

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.

 

 

"Fake" was the wrong word, I apologise - I really just meant 'custom' - was typing quickly 😳

 

I have no issue with custom Leaderboards, but I do think if - as MMDE confirmed - the criteria being used is being specifically designed to ensure that certain members' profiles come out on top - i.e. designing the back end maths to ensure individual, pre-identified profiles are highly placed - as opposed to just designing a 'fair' system independently (under a 'curtain of ignorance', as it is called in political circles) and seeing where the chips fall after that - then it is a little bit... something.

maybe not 'fake' but...

a little crass?

 

I mean, it does seem a bit cart-before-horse to me - to decide in advance which profiles should be higher up, and then design the rules specifically to meet that goal.

 

Like I said - I was just making a joke when I suggested that could be the answer - it was only when it was confirmed as true that I actually realised that was what was happening.

 

I don't personally have an issue with that per-se - everyone is free to use whatever criteria they choose to compare their profiles to others, and there are plenty of 'custom' competitions and such on this site (which I don't personally join in on, but absolutely support those who do) so why not leaderboards?

 

Personally, I don't really mind where I fall on any particular custom Leaderboard - I was just answering @NathanielJohn's question as best I understood it. :dunno:

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

 

"Fake" was the wrong word, I apologise - I really just meant 'custom' - was typing quickly 😳

 

I have no issue with custom Leaderboards, but I do think if - as MMDE confirmed - the criteria being used is being specifically designed to ensure that certain members' profiles come out on top - i.e. designing the back end maths to ensure individual, pre-identified profiles are highly placed - as opposed to just designing a 'fair' system independently (under a 'curtain of ignorance', as it is called in political circles) and seeing where the chips fall after that - then it is a little bit... something.

maybe not 'fake' but...

a little crass?

 

I mean, it does seem a bit cart-before-horse to me - to decide in advance which profiles should be higher up, and then design the rules specifically to meet that goal.

 

Like I said - I was just making a joke when I suggested that could be the answer - it was only when it was confirmed as true that I actually realised that was what was happening.

 

I don't personally have an issue with that per-se - everyone is free to use whatever criteria they choose to compare their profiles to others, and there are plenty of 'custom' competitions and such on this site (which I don't personally join in on, but absolutely support those who do) so why not leaderboards?

 

Personally, I don't really mind where I fall on any particular custom Leaderboard - I was just answering @NathanielJohn's question as best I understood it. :dunno:

 

Nah, not to specifically have certain member's profile come up on top, but certain type of trophy collections come up on top. If you got a lot of rare trophies, that should put you high on the list. If you got few rare trophies, even if you have a lot, you shouldn't appear high. I get the confusion with "profiles" here, but they're just used as examples of realistic collections.

 

I know some of the want for this leaderboard is derived from what is essentially the requirement of spamming pirated EZPZ games with 10 different regions all the time, every day. It is however also stemming from just it being cool to see how you rank based on rarity of trophies, because you find that more reflective of a trophy's value than the psn level value reflects.

 

In any case, the argument for a higher max value than 5000 is more points and nuanced distribution between the rarer trophies. Does it make sense 10 * 1% is worth the same as a 0.1%? Should it be worth 15 times 1% instead? That's the kind of thing you get more room for with higher max value. Just to increase max and make the curve steeper.

 

The argument against this is some few trophies and games being worth "too much". You end up with something like PSNTL, which I think overvalues the rarest stuff, like a certain pinball game. It also kind of gives more value to 1%. I suspect there might be some few of the very top rarity hunters that might actually be cheating sometimes too, and I would hate for the entire leaderboard to be dominated by a group of people who just cheat some few super rare trophies. You avoid it more by more people getting the chance to get to the top without the need to cheat etc. 😂 Eh, but this is secondary stuff I'm thinking about.

Edited by MMDE
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I would be very curious to see where the profiles rank that @Vergil posted earlier, as those are great examples of some more profiles that aren't the "top of the top" (world wide) but have some extremely impressive numbers (rarity).

________________________________________________

 

@MMDE Based on the calculations you have shown so far, I think whatever you are doing is fair while also not "outsting" big profiles either. Also in agreement that some of these bronze trophies out there can be a lot of work and seeing them worth the same amount of points as Joe Bob's 10 Minute Trophy Emporium, The Game. is not really fun at all. 

 

Speaking of which, my own profile is an interesting example of your scoring system. Considering the fact that all my Ultra Rare trophies are from Super Meat Boy (well except for one Clicker Heroes one), I'm actually quite interested to see my score is 26,750. I don't got a lot of rare/ultra rares, but it looks like the ones I do got (especially the Meat Boy ones) seems to be valued at a far better value for their %, despite me having barely any "rare" trophies at all without being TOO insane (after all I really don't have that much). :) Feel free to use my profile as an example to mess around with if you think some games are being awarded "too many" points, considering 10 of my 11 ultra rares are from Super Meat Boy alone.

________________________________________________

 

Anyways, I took a look at a random profile that was posted in the list, @Potent_Delusions who almost has 9,000 trophies and is (in the list you shared earlier) ranked #25th in that list. They almost have 2000 ultra rares which is insanely impressive, but they are "far" from the top of the "official" current leaderboard too. Here though in the proposed solution though, they are recognized for their feats of rarity hunting which I think sets out to do exactly what people would want to see (I think)?

 

Also I don't think @MMDE solution is "intentionally" placing people at the top, I think the algorithm is just using some growth maths to award rarer trophies more points (as per the comment earlier that "20 ultra rare bronze shouldn't be worth the same as a 10 minute game"... and then the leaderboard rankings just kinda fall where they may. I mean realistically there ARE profiles you'd "expect" to be at the top like Danny or Zajac but I'm also quite surprised to see a lot of profiles that I've never even seen before but have some super impressive ultra rare counts be recognized so... 🤔 

Edited by Sword
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sword said:

Anyways, I took a look at a random profile that was posted in the list, @Potent_Delusions who almost has 9,000 trophies and is (in the list you shared earlier) ranked #25th in that list.

 

Yeah, I've added all that has asked and the suggested ones to this list:

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@MMDE, could you please also scan Shady_Wombat and. SweatiestGoats?

Edited by hBLOXs
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best option would be to count common trophies, but simply add a percentage beyond which they aren't included. I'd say 30% should be the max, if trophies have more than 30% in rarity, they should be worth 0 points in the rarity leaderboard. By my understanding of how this works it shouldn't be too difficult to set up, as certain %s already have point values. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HaserPL said:

I think the best option would be to count common trophies, but simply add a percentage beyond which they aren't included. I'd say 30% should be the max, if trophies have more than 30% in rarity, they should be worth 0 points in the rarity leaderboard. By my understanding of how this works it shouldn't be too difficult to set up, as certain %s already have point values. 

I 100% agree with you

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 minutes ago, HaserPL said:

I think the best option would be to count common trophies, but simply add a percentage beyond which they aren't included. I'd say 30% should be the max, if trophies have more than 30% in rarity, they should be worth 0 points in the rarity leaderboard. By my understanding of how this works it shouldn't be too difficult to set up, as certain %s already have point values. 

 

Surely 30% is too low a rarity to discount entirely, isn't it?

 

That would essentially discard a lot of pretty popular games - ones that certainly don't fall into the 'EZPZ' type category that a lot of people dismiss and that are often the subject of ridicule elsewhere on the site.

 

Horizon Zero Dawn, The Last of Us Part II, Assassin's Creed Origins, Nier Automata,God of War, Control, Mark of the Ninja, Far Cry 3 & Persona 5 Royal (to name but a few) all have platinums with rarities above 30%, and would all be considered worthless.

 

I'm not arguing that those games are super difficult or anything, but they are 'real' games by anyone's standards, and some are quite the time-sink, and are by no means a cake-walk in all aspects. Even on a rarity board, it feels a bit much to consider them to be worth nothing.

Edited by DrBloodmoney
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HaserPL said:

I think the best option would be to count common trophies, but simply add a percentage beyond which they aren't included. I'd say 30% should be the max, if trophies have more than 30% in rarity, they should be worth 0 points in the rarity leaderboard. By my understanding of how this works it shouldn't be too difficult to set up, as certain %s already have point values. 

 

What really just happens then is you boost most people by 30%, "just fill", and those "true" rarity hunters have to add fill to their account to get the extra boost. I was kind of the opinion as you were before, but I think it makes sense to not count common trophies on a rarity leaderboard. It's supposed to be about rare trophies.

0

Share this post


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

 

Surely 30% is too low a rarity to discount entirely, isn't it?

 

That would essentially discard a lot of pretty popular games - ones that certainly don't fall into the 'EZPZ' type category that a lot of people dismiss and that are often the subject of ridicule elsewhere on the site.

 

Horizon Zero Dawn, The Last of Us Part II, Assassin's Creed Origins, Nier Automata,God of War, Control, Mark of the Ninja, Far Cry 3 & Persona 5 Royal (to name but a few) all have platinums with rarities above 30%, and would all be considered worthless.

 

I'm not arguing that those games are super difficult or anything, but they are 'real' games by anyone's standards, and some are quite the time-sink, and are by no means a cake-walk in all aspects. Even on a rarity board, it feels a bit much to consider them to be worth nothing.

The % would be up to more competent people to choose, I just stated my opinion on the matter. Yes, I agree they aren't comparable to Ratalaika games etc, but common trophies having a value in that can affect the rarity leaderboard drastically, isn't a good idea imo. But then again, some good games have platinum trophies with 50/55% rarity, so what should be the golden number then?

1

Share this post


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

 

What really just happens then is you boost most people by 30%, "just fill", and those "true" rarity hunters have to add fill to their account to get the extra boost. I was kind of the opinion as you were before, but I think it makes sense to not count common trophies on a rarity leaderboard. It's supposed to be about rare trophies.

 

Could you change something like this easily to get new results that people could see? It could be interesting to see how the tables vary with commons counted and not counted.

 

Also I don't really understand what is meant by commons counting but a cut off of 30%, since common trophies only start at 50% anyways, so wouldn't that just be commons, and most of uncommons, not counting?

0

Share this post


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

 

Surely 30% is too low a rarity to discount entirely, isn't it?

 

That would essentially discard a lot of pretty popular games - ones that certainly don't fall into the 'EZPZ' type category that a lot of people dismiss and that are often the subject of ridicule elsewhere on the site.

 

Horizon Zero Dawn, The Last of Us Part II, Assassin's Creed Origins, Nier Automata,God of War, Control, Mark of the Ninja, Far Cry 3 & Persona 5 Royal (to name but a few) all have platinums with rarities above 30%, and would all be considered worthless.

 

I'm not arguing that those games are super difficult or anything, but they are 'real' games by anyone's standards, and some are quite the time-sink, and are by no means a cake-walk in all aspects. Even on a rarity board, it feels a bit much to consider them to be worth nothing.

I see your point but being a AAA game dosent change the fact that it’s easy even if the game takes 100 hours, this LP is for rare games not matter what they are.

 

 

I think only rares, very rares and ultra rares should count towards this LP everything else should be 0.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, HaserPL said:

The % would be up to more competent people to choose, I just stated my opinion on the matter. Yes, I agree they aren't comparable to Ratalaika games etc, but common trophies having a value in that can affect the rarity leaderboard drastically, isn't a good idea imo. But then again, some good games have platinum trophies with 50/55% rarity, so what should be the golden number then?

Well, as far as I know, PSNTL does this by having a points value assigned based on rarity at a logarithmic factor, but with a minimum and a maximum.

 

IIRC, the minimum is 200pts (for games at like 60% commonality and above - that's probably not the actual value, it's something like that though), and the max of 6200pts I think, (for a theoretical game where the rarity is 0%).

That means that, while easy games are still counted, they are dramatically undervalued as compared to rare games. One would need to play approximately 30 easy games to completion get the same points as someone who completes one very difficult one.

 

I'm not suggesting that PSNP copy the same system exactly (In fact, considering a lot of people here also uses that site, I'm actively saying they shouldn't) but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that all games should count for something, but the devil should be in the detail of how much, comparative to a very tough, rare game.

 

Them's my two cents anyways. :dunno:

Edited by DrBloodmoney
0

Share this post


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

 

What really just happens then is you boost most people by 30%, "just fill", and those "true" rarity hunters have to add fill to their account to get the extra boost. I was kind of the opinion as you were before, but I think it makes sense to not count common trophies on a rarity leaderboard. It's supposed to be about rare trophies.

 

I think the rarity leaderboard should be based around rarity and not around certain games. If you start with: but that game and that game, and don't forget about that game you ll never finish and just to include the 5 to 10 people pleasers like horizon etc while you literally have hundreds of fantastic games with plats below 20% is just not doing it a service in my opinion. you ll end up with a half baked variant. I would completely cut out everything above 20% if it was up to me. Did you already  try to make a calculation based solely on UR VR and R @MMDE?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

urgh, my entire post is gone :( 
 

 

Oh well, here is at least what I originally posted:

https://pastebin.com/raw/dZHCKxjU

 

Beware, the function is not adjusted for a different range. A 25% trophy is still worth the same as before.

Edited by MMDE
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What I do see from those are, almost exact same values. Those above 20% is worth near nothing anyway, so I just give people "some" credit for getting a lot of 20-50%. These usually require a bit more than near no effort, so I think that's fair tbh.

Edited by MMDE
0

Share this post


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

What I do see from those are, almost exact same values. Those above 20% is worth near nothing anyway, so I just give people "some" credit for getting a lot of 20-50%. These usually require a bit more than near no effort, so I think that's fair tbh.

 

Yeah, but if they are worth near nothing anyway, why bother to include them :) 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 minutes ago, Fleks_Mhteam said:

 

Yeah, but if they are worth near nothing anyway, why bother to include them :) 

 

Because they're a tiny bit rare, so they are worth a tiny bit. ;) Besides, there's nowhere near as easy to mass spam those, and you would need so many it's simply not worth it, and you can tell by how the result doesn't really change much. You can pick between 100 x 28% or a single 2%. Or 500-1000 x 40-50% or a single 2%.

 

I linked to pastebin for the results, I don't think the forum liked me having it in a post, and I accidentally deleted it somehow.

Edited by MMDE
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this was already sorted, but was there a conclusion on what to do about auto popped trophies?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, PrinceOfPeace said:

Sorry if this was already sorted, but was there a conclusion on what to do about auto popped trophies?

 

I don't think it matters that much. It'll just sort itself out in terms of the rarity dropping. I do see the point when it comes to extreme rarity trophies just being auto popped a second time while nobody else are able to get them anyway. However, I don't see any realistic fix to this. In theory you could have a system that through human interaction learns what are dupes and can analyze profiles for this, but that's a lot of human interaction, a lot of extra resources to analyze profiles (possibility for more issues too), and you may get "false positives" (people replaying the games legit). You may think it's easy to tell what is auto popped, but what that is differs between the games. It's a mess, I don't see any realistic fix, and I don't think it's a huge issue.

Edited by MMDE
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has Sly commented on whether he's likely to implement this? I won't lie, I was hoping we'd get to see BlindMango's ribbon system as an answer to this debacle.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see finally promising results in here. It's great to have an alternative to the common Trophyhoarder LB:yay:

 

@MMDE please add @Kratos11911 to the LB. He will be in top 10 I guess;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some more testing, went back to the drawing board, attempted to use other values, tried to create other decent functions... nothing really nailed it like this one. Honestly, if this is the one, I already made it months ago -_- There is some funky properties to some of the values with the exact given function I just can't replicate as well otherwise, and I actually like the point distribution fairly well.

 

59 minutes ago, NamoPh said:

Has Sly commented on whether he's likely to implement this? I won't lie, I was hoping we'd get to see BlindMango's ribbon system as an answer to this debacle.

 

 

 

I think I've said it some few times in this thread, but yes, some of the staff has discussed it before and Sly contributed with his input on the topic. He didn't want any commons to count. Also, he wondered what would happen to accounts that didn't update often enough and some potential issues in how the rarity is updated. Complicated! However, he wanted to do it, we just need to agree upon something.

 

1 hour ago, D-E-U-S-X said:

Good to see finally promising results in here. It's great to have an alternative to the common Trophyhoarder LB:yay:

 

@MMDE please add @Kratos11911 to the LB. He will be in top 10 I guess;)

 

Added, and yeah, like expected, he was. :) 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a glance, the numbers seem to work out fairly well. A 5k cap sounds reasonable to neither devalue or overvalue a single trophy. I also agree that counting up to 50% is fine as you would need 293 trophies at 30% (the other suggested cutoff) or 1024 at 40% to match the points of a single 1.0% rarity trophy. I really can't think of any instances at which this could be time efficient. It's also good to keep it wider as people can still see some growth even if they're playing some more casual games. Granted, it won't be many points, but it's at least something.

 

Overall, I do really enjoy the idea as it gives players who haven't been playing nonstop for over a decade a chance to get fairly high on a leaderboard. I'm happy with my current point values and I've been away from PSN in general for over 6 years and never really got into hunting UR when I was younger.

1

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.