Rarity Leaderboard

[DeepEyes7]

1 minute ago, DrBloodmoney said:

fair enough I suppose 

 

I guess I just think this is going too far - in trying to create a leaderboard that is a diametric counter to the main one it goes - to my mind - way too far in the opposite direction.

 

Wasn’t this whole concept, at least somewhat, born out of the idea that the main Leaderboard encourages anyone who wishes to be competitive on it to eschew those kind of games, in favour of stacks and stacks of 30-minute platinums?

 

By completely discarding the trophies of half the most popular ‘good’ / ‘real’ / ‘AAA’ (whatever term you want - you know what I mean?) games, won’t any new ‘Rarity Leaderboard’ just encourage anyone who wishes to be competitive on it to do the same thing, but instead of stacks and stacks of 30 minute platinums, it will be for broken / obscure / untra-niche / ultra-grindy and downright bad games with UR trophies instead? 

 

That’s not to say I am smart enough to devise a Leaderboard that actually does benefit people for just playing a healthy dose of everything though! ?

 

I guess it doesn’t matter much anyways though. 
I mean, folks like me, who have a mix of game difficulties and just plays what looks fun will no doubt just come out in roughly similar, middle-of-the-road spots anyways. ?

 

If it went in the same direction that the main LB then why should they do it? That would just be the main LB without Ratalaika

 

You could be right with the "broken / obscure / untra-niche / ultra-grindy and downright bad games with UR trophies" but at least they are not more than 500 games like the stacked/ezpz ones, and if they were, they wont take 30 mins each, so there is no point of comparison. You can't rack a huge number of UR trophies in so little time like you can do in the main LB with easy trophies, and surely there is some UR trophies that are "easy" to get, but I assure you that they are very limited.

[DrBloodmoney]

14 minutes ago, DeepEyes7 said:

 

If it went in the same direction that the main LB then why should they do it? That would just be the main LB without Ratalaika

 

You could be right with the "broken / obscure / untra-niche / ultra-grindy and downright bad games with UR trophies" but at least they are not more than 500 games like the stacked/ezpz ones, and if they were, they wont take 30 mins each, so there is no point of comparison. You can't rack a huge number of UR trophies in so little time like you can do in the main LB with easy trophies, and surely there is some UR trophies that are "easy" to get, but I assure you that they are very limited.

Sure - you make a fair point.

 

I think what I’m trying to say is more that it’s a matter of degrees.

 

Weighting rarer trophies as more valuable than less rare ones, I’m all for. I’m just less for completely discarding trophies from very popular, good games entirely.

 

It’s a matter of degrees for everyone though - I don’t think I’m alone in that - though I might be the only dissenting voice about that particular percentage.

 

....

 

You know something....

...I don’t think I’m doing a good job of articulating my reservations here. ? 

 

That’s on me - no one else...!

 

Let me try this - completely hypothetically -  would you be okay if the rarity leaderboard only treated games with rarities under 0.5%, and all trophies with a higher rarity than that were worth nothing?

Edited March 26, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[MMDE]

@NathanielJohn

 

 

Green line is the function I use, the orange/yellow is the one you linked to. Notice the green just seemingly stops at 5000...

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by MMDE

[bosstristan]

9 minutes ago, MMDE said:

@NathanielJohn

 

 

 

This picture is gonna give me nightmares (I hate maths)

[NathanielJohn]

15 minutes ago, MMDE said:

Green line is the function I use, the orange/yellow is the one you linked to. Notice the green just seemingly stops at 5000...

 

Thanks for the plot. Two questions:

- Can you tell me what happens farther to the right of the graph? Does it eventually hit the x-axis (e.g., at x = 100), or does it just get closer and closer forever?

- Can you tell me the exact value of your function at x = 50? I assumed that you were taking the ceiling of something that goes through the point (50,0), but based on your graph it looks more like you're taking the floor of something that goes through (49.99,1), which seems... odd.

 

Edit: Also, the fact that my graph is to the left of the y-axis in your screenshot is a byproduct of Desmos rounding things off mid-calculation. The function I linked goes through (0,5000) exactly, not to the left of it, but Desmos rounds off numbers computed via sliders.

Edited March 26, 2021 by NathanielJohn

[DeepEyes7]

18 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Sure - you make a fair point.

 

I think what I’m trying to say is more that it’s a matter of degrees.

 

Weighting rarer trophies as more valuable than less rare ones, I’m all for. I’m just less for completely discarding trophies from very popular, good games entirely.

 

It’s a matter of degrees for everyone though - I don’t think I’m alone in that - though I might be the only dissenting voice about that particular percentage.

 

....

 

You know something....

...I don’t think I’m doing a good job of articulating my reservations here. ? 

 

That’s on me - no one else...!

 

Let me try this - completely hypothetically -  would you be okay if the rarity leaderboard only treated games with rarities under 0.5%, and all trophies with a higher rarity than that were worth nothing?

 

Yeah, I understand your point, if you are a player that doesnt go for UR trophies but neither play ratalaika games then you doesnt have a place on the main LB or in this "new" one... But you can't try to shape this one to your needs either because thats isn't the point of it, it's like trying to make a completionist LB and trying to make the 100% worth a little less just because you dont go for 100%'s

 

Sadly I think (just my personal opinion) that you need to go in a certain direction if you want a place on a LB or enjoy "trying to climb on it" (Thats the "joy" that a lot of people lose with the main LB when the ezpz plats take over), you can go with completionism, rarity, or just raw numbers, but it's difficult to enjoy a LB just staying in the middle of all.

Edited March 26, 2021 by DeepEyes7

[MMDE]

1 hour ago, NathanielJohn said:

 

Thanks for the plot. Two questions:

- Can you tell me what happens farther to the right of the graph? Does it eventually hit the x-axis (e.g., at x = 100), or does it just get closer and closer forever?

- Can you tell me the exact value of your function at x = 50? I assumed that you were taking the ceiling of something that goes through the point (50,0), but based on your graph it looks more like you're taking the floor of something that goes through (49.99,1), which seems... odd.

 

1. No, it never hits x, and that's a pretty damn good giveaway of how it works.

2. Where would the fun in that be? ? And I think it doesn't hit 1 at 50 because of the constant being rounded, losing some precision to avoid having to re-compute it for every point.

Edited March 26, 2021 by MMDE

[DeepEyes7]

13 minutes ago, NathanielJohn said:

 

Thanks for the plot. Two questions:

- Can you tell me what happens farther to the right of the graph? Does it eventually hit the x-axis (e.g., at x = 100), or does it just get closer and closer forever?

- Can you tell me the exact value of your function at x = 50? I assumed that you were taking the ceiling of something that goes through the point (50,0), but based on your graph it looks more like you're taking the floor of something that goes through (49.99,1), which seems... odd.

 

Edit: Also, the fact that my graph is to the left of the y-axis in your screenshot is a byproduct of Desmos rounding things off mid-calculation. The function I linked goes through (0,5000) exactly, not to the left of it, but Desmos rounds off numbers computed via sliders.

 

I think the point of the function is to have an asymptote on the x-axis

 

.:Edit, well MMDE confirms it

 

14 minutes ago, bosstristan said:

This picture is gonna give me nightmares (I hate maths)

 

Think of it like an UR plat XD... Go for it!

Edited March 26, 2021 by DeepEyes7

[Sword]

@DrBloodmoney I mean I suppose you could assign points for every trophy, but at that point the range that you're talking about (50%+ in this case) would you even consider those to be "rare" at all? Even if they were worth 1 point that would kind of be counter productive to what is trying to be encouraged here (awarding points for going for rarer trophies with more points the rarer you go).

 

Realistically for most profiles even if you assigned 1 point for everything above 50%, it really wouldn't make THAT much of a difference. Take Hakoom's profile for example. Let's say that literally EVERY trophy he earned was above 50% and he had 100,000 trophies. At 1 point per trophy he'd have 100,000 points. Compare that to the formula and you'll see that his ranking would be so low compared to everyone else that it really wouldn't "matter" anyway. Then there's another issue where let's say a hypothetical account exists that's exactly like this (100,000 ezpz trophies). Should such an account even be "ranked" on a "Rarity" leaderboard at all even if it was 1 point per trophy? Not like they are exactly hunting anything rare at all... 

 

I suppose there could be an argument that "every trophy has rarity if it's below 99.99%"... but again the points you'd be earning from collecting those are so small anyway. I guess it could make a difference if you're super close to someone else and the point difference comes down to 50%+ trophies but... eh..

 

I agree though there's a lot of GREAT and fantastic games out there... but the fact is that their trophy rarity is just not "rare" by any definition. Perhaps they could be worth 1 point, but again you really wouldn't be climbing just hoarding easier games... 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Sword

[DrBloodmoney]

22 minutes ago, Sword said:

@DrBloodmoney I mean I suppose you could assign points for every trophy, but at that point the range that you're talking about (50%+ in this case) would you even consider those to be "rare" at all? Even if they were worth 1 point that would kind of be counter productive to what is trying to be encouraged here (awarding points for going for rarer trophies with more points the rarer you go).

 

Realistically for most profiles even if you assigned 1 point for everything above 50%, it really wouldn't make THAT much of a difference. Take Hakoom's profile for example. Let's say that literally EVERY trophy he earned was above 50% and he had 100,000 trophies. At 1 point per trophy he'd have 100,000 points. Compare that to the formula and you'll see that his ranking would be so low compared to everyone else that it really wouldn't "matter" anyway. Then there's another issue where let's say a hypothetical account exists that's exactly like this (100,000 ezpz trophies). Should such an account even be "ranked" on a "Rarity" leaderboard at all? 

 

I suppose there could be an argument that "every trophy has rarity if it's below 99.99%"... but again the points you'd be earning from collecting those are so small anyway. I guess it could make a difference if you're super close to someone else and the point difference comes down to 50%+ trophies but... eh..

 

I agree though there's a lot of GREAT and fantastic games out there... but the fact is that their trophy rarity is just not "rare" by any definition. Perhaps they could be worth 1 point, but again you really wouldn't be climbing just hoarding easier games... 

 

Totally fair and well argued -

just want to clarify though, as I think the origins of this point of mine is getting a bit lost -

 

I was referring to a ‘discard’ value of 30% - or someone  even mentioned 20%  - as being too low - not 50%.

 

50%, IMO, would be pretty much fine - my issue was mostly about how many excellent, ‘worthy’ games (Persona5 / Nier automata / Spiderman / God of War et al) have a rarity between 30% and 40%, not because they are super easy or quick, but just because they are so good, that a high percentage people want to plat them.

Edited March 26, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[steel6burgh]

I think at the end of the day we all know who deserves to be the top of the rarity leaderboard and if this set up has them at the top then he nailed it.  I really like it.  Really like how it gives value to the sub 1% trophies and I think this type of leaderboard will add a new element of fun to trophy hunting.   Why not have two leaderboards one for rarity and one or quantity.

[MMDE]

59 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Totally fair and well argued -

just want to clarify though, as I think the origins of this point of mine is getting a bit lost -

 

I was referring to a ‘discard’ value of 30% - or someone  even mentioned 20%  - as being too low - not 50%.

 

50%, IMO, would be pretty much fine - my issue was mostly about how many excellent, ‘worthy’ games (Persona5 / Nier automata / Spiderman / God of War et al) have a rarity between 30% and 40%, not because they are super easy or quick, but just because they are so good, that a high percentage people want to plat them.

 

This won't really be about quality trophies, but rather rare trophies. Rarity often increase when many has access to it and the trophies takes a lot more effort than people are willing to spend on the game. In other words, shit games everyone get for "free", with grindy and / or difficult trophies tend to become super rare. I don't really see anything good or realistic coming from personal judgement determining the values.

 

One possibility could be just everyone who has earned the trophy / completed the game could vote on it's difficulty, but I don't really see it working out well. What would you vote on any game you completed if it benefited you to give it high difficulty? ... yeah... maybe you wouldn't, but many would.

59 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Totally fair and well argued -

just want to clarify though, as I think the origins of this point of mine is getting a bit lost -

 

I was referring to a ‘discard’ value of 30% - or someone  even mentioned 20%  - as being too low - not 50%.

 

50%, IMO, would be pretty much fine - my issue was mostly about how many excellent, ‘worthy’ games (Persona5 / Nier automata / Spiderman / God of War et al) have a rarity between 30% and 40%, not because they are super easy or quick, but just because they are so good, that a high percentage people want to plat them.

 

 

Yeah, I was checking if it made any difference to set the cut-off at those values. There was also some talk about rewarding points for 50%+, but that it could max make up 30% of your total score. As I explained before, this would just lead to rare trophies being worth less unless you "boosted" them with max common points. Just seems counter productive.

 

700k points from rare trophies, and then to get the most out of those, you would need 300k points from common trophies. Very few of the rare trophy hunters would like to fill their accounts with EZPZ games to get the most out of their rares.

Edited March 26, 2021 by MMDE

[DrBloodmoney]

3 minutes ago, MMDE said:

 

In other words, shit games everyone get for "free", with grindy and / or difficult trophies tend to become super rare.

Oh, I’m well aware of that phenomenon- as my rare trophies in Space Overlords can attest - that game might have been a free Ps+ game, but man, was it an unholy abortion of a game!?

 

On the other hand though, I guess it can also benefit good games - Invisible Inc isn’t all that difficult, and it’s one of the best games I’ve ever played, but it’s rarity was pushed artificially through the roof by being a PS+ game  ?

[MMDE]

8 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Oh, I’m well aware of that phenomenon- as my rare trophies in Space Overlords can attest - that game might have been a free Ps+ game, but man, was it an unholy abortion of a game!?

 

On the other hand though, I guess it can also benefit good games - Invisible Inc isn’t all that difficult, and it’s one of the best games I’ve ever played, but it’s rarity was pushed artificially through the roof by being a PS+ game  ?

 

Notice who was first to 100% that game... yeah, I bought it, didn't get it from PS+. ?->?->?->?->?

 

Updated list with a lot of new users:

(mostly added new "extremes" AKA a lot of URs or a lot of trophies with few URs etc)

Edited March 26, 2021 by MMDE

[DrBloodmoney]

4 minutes ago, MMDE said:

 

Notice who was first to 100% that game... yeah, I bought it, didn't get it from PS+. ->->->->

 

?
 

My condolences ? 

[MMDE]

1 hour ago, NathanielJohn said:

Edit: Also, the fact that my graph is to the left of the y-axis in your screenshot is a byproduct of Desmos rounding things off mid-calculation. The function I linked goes through (0,5000) exactly, not to the left of it, but Desmos rounds off numbers computed via sliders.

 

It's true I use one more function/operator than what the graph shows to create the numbers, but it's the same as would happen if you were to calculate something where the result would be without point precision. It's not "round", it's floor.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_and_ceiling_functions

 

You can see what the functions look like on the graphs there.

 

In any case, this makes the function safe to use on all valid rarity %s.

Edited March 26, 2021 by MMDE

[MMDE]

I guess I should explain the "issue" with this entire system. Let's say a new game with 50 trophies is released, and you are the first to get all of them. You will have 50 trophies with 0% rarity, because rarity isn't updated before later. That gives you 250k points, and you can do this for a handful of games at the same time, and maybe net yourself 1 mill points. The % of the trophies don't update before a bit later, and when they do, they go to let's say 50%. Your account has the "points" cached, so your profile still says you got 1mill for that game, until your profile is updated that is. People just gotta beware this is just a result of how everything works, and I don't think there's any good workaround. The trophy will eventually be updated and so will your profile, and if someone tries to rack up some points by doing this, it's just to update their profile I guess.

 

@Sly Ripper

Okay, so I put some more thought into a possible fix for this, to avoid the issue. The game doesn't count on your rarity score before you are registered as an "owner" of the game (as the rarity of the trophies are adjusted), and maybe it should update the rarity score of the profile when the user is added as a new "owner/player" of the game.

Edited March 26, 2021 by MMDE

[NathanielJohn]

1 hour ago, MMDE said:

It's not "round", it's floor.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_and_ceiling_functions

 

This is why I wish you would just say what function you're using. I know what the floor and ceiling function are, and I know that you're flooring the result of your function -- I mentioned them a few posts ago. But instead of having a useful discussion, we're just constantly guessing at what each other are talking about for some reason.

[Booster92BG]

2 hours ago, MMDE said:

I guess I should explain the "issue" with this entire system. Let's say a new game with 50 trophies is released, and you are the first to get all of them. You will have 50 trophies with 0% rarity, because rarity isn't updated before later. That gives you 250k points, and you can do this for a handful of games at the same time, and maybe net yourself 1 mill points. The % of the trophies don't update before a bit later, and when they do, they go to let's say 50%. Your account has the "points" cached, so your profile still says you got 1mill for that game, until your profile is updated that is. People just gotta beware this is just a result of how everything works, and I don't think there's any good workaround. The trophy will eventually be updated and so will your profile, and if someone tries to rack up some points by doing this, it's just to update their profile I guess.

 

First of all, i want to thank you for the effort to help creating the new leaderboard. IMO it will be a fresh option on this site!

 

About the ''issue''

Im not 100% sure, but i think in PSNTL every new game which is added will NOT net you any points for the first month of the release of the game. Of course you earn trophies, but you dont get points for them. Im not sure if this can be a good workaround, its just a thought. 

[KennethMcCormick]

3 hours ago, MMDE said:

I guess I should explain the "issue" with this entire system. Let's say a new game with 50 trophies is released, and you are the first to get all of them. You will have 50 trophies with 0% rarity, because rarity isn't updated before later. That gives you 250k points, and you can do this for a handful of games at the same time, and maybe net yourself 1 mill points. The % of the trophies don't update before a bit later, and when they do, they go to let's say 50%. Your account has the "points" cached, so your profile still says you got 1mill for that game, until your profile is updated that is. People just gotta beware this is just a result of how everything works, and I don't think there's any good workaround. The trophy will eventually be updated and so will your profile, and if someone tries to rack up some points by doing this, it's just to update their profile I guess.

 

@Sly Ripper

Okay, so I put some more thought into a possible fix for this, to avoid the issue. The game doesn't count on your rarity score before you are registered as an "owner" of the game (as the rarity of the trophies are adjusted), and maybe it should update the rarity score of the profile when the user is added as a new "owner/player" of the game.

 

 

First of all, thank you for trying to get this LB under way @MMDE, by actually doing something about it.

 

I see another issue, though, that most people won't care about in the main, points based LB (except if they're bothered by stacks, maybe), but that could be quite unfair in a rarity focused one: the regional differences. NA has a hell of an advantage, as far as rarity is concerned.

 

For example, I just took a few games I played. For ease of reading, I only took their PS4 versions, and the 100% score for games with DLC. Highlighted some extremes in bold.

 

                                                                                            EU              NA             JP           AS
 
Contrast                                                                           18.61           14.56          21.13          -
Divinity: Original Sin 2                                                       4.69            2.44            9.68           -
Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice                                            41.07           34.52            -                -
Injustice: Gods Among Us Ultimate Edition                       0.16            0.14             -                -
Onechanbara Z2: Chaos                                                 11.28            6.92           9.80            -
Phantom Doctrine                                                             5.28            1.28              -                -
Secret Ponchos                                                                 0.15            0.11             -                -
Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition                                    12.52            8.99             -            20.65
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - GOTY Edition                         7.29            4.40             -                 -

 

 

So, according to MMDE's table, rounding at the nearest number, the NA plat for Phantom Doctrine would be worth 1796 pts, whereas its EU counterpart would only score 306. So a x4.1 difference would lead to a x5.9 LB points difference for the exact same game with the exact same difficulty. Sleeping Dogs would get 26 pts with the AS version, 127 with the US one.

 

No system is perfect, but I was wondering how the different versions were tagged in the website database, namely if it would be possible, for example, to take the average of all the versions for the only purpose of computing the rarity of any given trophy in those lists. If they're tagged manually, it might be nigh impossible... And it shouldn't be too much of a kick in the nuts for UR stackers if you still kept each version independently (someone who stacks Injustice:GAU would have two 0.15 instead of one 0.14 and one 0.16).

 

 

[MMDE]

1 hour ago, KennethMcCormick said:

 

 

First of all, thank you for trying to get this LB under way @MMDE, by actually doing something about it.

 

I see another issue, though, that most people won't care about in the main, points based LB (except if they're bothered by stacks, maybe), but that could be quite unfair in a rarity focused one: the regional differences. NA has a hell of an advantage, as far as rarity is concerned.

 

For example, I just took a few games I played. For ease of reading, I only took their PS4 versions, and the 100% score for games with DLC. Highlighted some extremes in bold.

 

                                                                                            EU              NA             JP           AS
 
Contrast                                                                           18.61           14.56          21.13          -
Divinity: Original Sin 2                                                       4.69            2.44            9.68           -
Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice                                            41.07           34.52            -                -
Injustice: Gods Among Us Ultimate Edition                       0.16            0.14             -                -
Onechanbara Z2: Chaos                                                 11.28            6.92           9.80            -
Phantom Doctrine                                                             5.28            1.28              -                -
Secret Ponchos                                                                 0.15            0.11             -                -
Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition                                    12.52            8.99             -            20.65
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - GOTY Edition                         7.29            4.40             -                 -

 

 

So, according to MMDE's table, rounding at the nearest number, the NA plat for Phantom Doctrine would be worth 1796 pts, whereas its EU counterpart would only score 306. So a x4.1 difference would lead to a x5.9 LB points difference for the exact same game with the exact same difficulty. Sleeping Dogs would get 26 pts with the AS version, 127 with the US one.

 

No system is perfect, but I was wondering how the different versions were tagged in the website database, namely if it would be possible, for example, to take the average of all the versions for the only purpose of computing the rarity of any given trophy in those lists. If they're tagged manually, it might be nigh impossible... And it shouldn't be too much of a kick in the nuts for UR stackers if you still kept each version independently (someone who stacks Injustice:GAU would have two 0.15 instead of one 0.14 and one 0.16).

 

 

 

You can play different region stacks.

 

You know what exists? A game that has a NA and a EU version, where the NA is like 7/10 difficulty, while the EU is 1/10 difficulty, but they share the same trophy list. ?In that case you would want the EU version, as it's just super easy and you get the exact same trophies (not stacking lists, same).

2 hours ago, Booster92BG said:

 

First of all, i want to thank you for the effort to help creating the new leaderboard. IMO it will be a fresh option on this site!

 

About the ''issue''

Im not 100% sure, but i think in PSNTL every new game which is added will NOT net you any points for the first month of the release of the game. Of course you earn trophies, but you dont get points for them. Im not sure if this can be a good workaround, its just a thought. 

 

Yeah, that's another possibility. I know it is something Sly actually wondered about a solution to.

 

 

In case people wonder, Sly also tried to make the case that platinums should not be awarded points. I'm kind of split on that tbh. I would much more prefer the plat was worth extra points. It's for getting the rest of the trophies, it's kind of a requirement all by itself.

Edited March 27, 2021 by MMDE

[Dr_Mayus]

9 minutes ago, MMDE said:

 

In case people wonder, Sly also tried to make the case that platinums should not be awarded points. I'm kind of split on that tbh. I would much more prefer the plat was worth extra points. It's for getting the rest of the trophies, it's kind of a requirement all by itself.

There are also games where the plat is Ultra Rare but none of the other trophies are. Kingdom Hearts Chains of Memories is like this. The plat is an UR (4.86%) but the next rarest trophy is 5.79%. That is quite the jump.

 

https://psnprofiles.com/trophies/1880-kingdom-hearts-rechain-of-memories/Dr_Mayus?order=rarity

[MMDE]

48 minutes ago, Dr_Mayus said:

There are also games where the plat is Ultra Rare but none of the other trophies are. Kingdom Hearts Chains of Memories is like this. The plat is an UR (4.86%) but the next rarest trophy is 5.79%. That is quite the jump.

 

https://psnprofiles.com/trophies/1880-kingdom-hearts-rechain-of-memories/Dr_Mayus?order=rarity

 

Yeah, and I think that's an argument for count the UR. I see it less of a good case when there's one difficult trophy and it just pops alongside that final last one everyone struggles with. When it's rarer than all the other ones, it means there's like this extra total effort to get it. Ultimately, there's only one per trophy list, so I don't think it's a huge issue.

Edited March 27, 2021 by MMDE

[Angus1343]

I like the look of this and really hope it gets implemented. However, I do see where @DrBloodmoney is coming from. Both this and the current leaderboard would be pretty easily exploited in short time, either by playing tons of ratalaika shovelware, or focusing on easy quick ultra rare games( boosting ancient ps3 games, garbage that was given free on plus etc.) Heck one could even climb both very rapidly if they could tolerate playing these type of games a lot.

However the average trophy hunter would be left in the dust on both leaderboards if just playing typical games regardless of the amount of effort given or the rate of which they are completing them. It would be nice if there were some way to measure this effort as well somehow. 

This rarity leaderboard would be a great addition to the site, but it isn't the solution to the ezpz problem that many are looking for.

[MMDE]

34 minutes ago, Angus1343 said:

I like the look of this and really hope it gets implemented. However, I do see where @DrBloodmoney is coming from. Both this and the current leaderboard would be pretty easily exploited in short time, either by playing tons of ratalaika shovelware, or focusing on easy quick ultra rare games( boosting ancient ps3 games, garbage that was given free on plus etc.) Heck one could even climb both very rapidly if they could tolerate playing these type of games a lot.

However the average trophy hunter would be left in the dust on both leaderboards if just playing typical games regardless of the amount of effort given or the rate of which they are completing them. It would be nice if there were some way to measure this effort as well somehow. 

This rarity leaderboard would be a great addition to the site, but it isn't the solution to the ezpz problem that many are looking for.

 

If everyone keeps boosting those easy ones, they will just turn common. Some few games aren't an issue IMO, as long as they aren't awarded an insane amount.

Edited March 27, 2021 by MMDE