Rarity Leaderboard

[NathanielJohn]

54 minutes ago, zajac9999 said:

I would agree that they should be, but that's the problem for me, which is why I asked about the max initially. If a 0.01 trophy should be worth a lot more than a 0.1% trophy (it is currently, 500 against 242) then I'd expect other comparisons of value to wield similar results, but at the moment they don't. For example I'd expect 0.5% to be worth approximately double a 1% but at the moment it's 137 for 0.5% and 104 for 1% likewise I'd expect a 1% to be worth much more than a 2% but again it's not.

 

OK, I think I get what you're saying. The first table here shows what happens if you just make a 0.1% trophy worth double a 0.2% trophy, which is double a 0.4% trophy, and so on. In my opinion, it's very undesirable because it's even *more* skewed than what we have now.

 

So what if instead we ask that a 0.1% trophy is worth 1.5 times as much as a 0.2% trophy, which is worth 1.5 times as much as a 0.4% trophy, which is worth 1.5 times as much as a 0.8% trophy, and so on? That way, the scale is consistent, but less extreme. The function that does this is:

 

Points = C*(3/2)^(1 - log_2(Rarity)), where C = (3/2)^(-1+log_2(50)) = 6.572...

 

The table of values looks like:

 

50	1.00
40	1.14
30	1.35
20	1.71
10	2.56
5	3.85
4	4.38
3	5.18
2	6.57
1	9.86
0.1	37.91
0.01	145.80

 

Still looks way too skewed to me. Exponential things just grow way too fast for even proportions between rarity percentages *not* to be really skewed. Thoughts from others?

Edited April 13, 2017 by NathanielJohn

[dmland12]

OK, so here's an example of what I'm talking about with capping the low end and increasing the skew.

 

Take the original formula and set the values to MAX=1500 and N=0.46085, cap the highest value at 500 and everything more common than 50 at 0 and you get the following:

 

 

If you're willing to cap the low end, you can get a better looking skew from higher N's and MAX's.  In my opinion, at least.  

[NathanielJohn]

You know what, the more I think about it, the more I like the simple formula Points = 50/Rarity. Table of values (truncated at Rarity = 0.1%, as per dmland12's suggestion):

 

>50	0
50	1
40	1.25
30	1.67
20	2.5
10	5
5	10
4	12.5
3	16.67
2	25
1	50
0.5	100
0.4	125
0.3	166.67
0.2	250
0.1	500
<0.1	500

 

Reasons why I like it:

 

1. The formula is simple and easy to explain.

 

2. It is consistent. At all scales, halving the rarity doubles the number of points. A 10% trophy is worth two 20% trophies. A 0.25% trophy is worth two 0.5% trophies. Etc.

 

3. It makes common/uncommon trophies essentially worthless, while giving lots of points to ultra rares, which seems to fix the major problem that most people have with the current formula.

 

However, there is still one potential downside, and that is the one brought up a while back by Danny: games like Time Crisis Razing Storm (which has 30 extremely rare trophies) would give an absurd number of points. Still not as extreme as on the other site with a rarity leaderboard, but it's worth considering.

Edited April 13, 2017 by NathanielJohn

[- Deleted -]

Yes it looks great I love it  time to step up my UR count.

[zajac9999]

48 minutes ago, dmland12 said:

OK, so here's an example of what I'm talking about with capping the low end and increasing the skew.

 

Take the original formula and set the values to MAX=1500 and N=0.46085, cap the highest value at 500 and everything more common than 50 at 0 and you get the following:

 

 

If you're willing to cap the low end, you can get a better looking skew from higher N's and MAX's.  In my opinion, at least.  

 

I was going to mention this, but was on mobile and cba, I really like the idea of capping it at the rarest end, makes everything nicer imo.

29 minutes ago, NathanielJohn said:

You know what, the more I think about it, the more I like the simple formula Points = 50/Rarity. Table of values (truncated at Rarity = 0.1%, as per dmland12's suggestion):

 

>50	0
50	1
40	1.25
30	1.67
20	2.5
10	5
5	10
4	12.5
3	16.67
2	25
1	50
0.5	100
0.4	125
0.3	166.67
0.2	250
0.1	500
<0.1	500

 

Reasons why I like it:

 

1. The formula is simple and easy to explain.

 

2. It is consistent. At all scales, halving the rarity doubles the number of points. A 10% trophy is worth two 20% trophies. A 0.25% trophy is worth two 0.5% trophies. Etc.

 

3. It makes common/uncommon trophies essentially worthless, while giving lots of points to ultra rares, which seems to fix the major problem that most people have with the current formula.

 

However, there is still one potential downside, and that is the one brought up a while back by Danny: games like Time Crisis Razing Storm (which has 30 extremely rare trophies) would give an absurd number of points. Still not as extreme as on the other site with a rarity leaderboard, but it's worth considering.

 

I also really like that, infact it's the best I've seen so far.

 

I know that certain games have a lot of rare trophies but I don't really see it as a problem. The trophies in RS are rare trophies, this is a rarity leaderboard so it should give a lot of points. Same way that the regular leaderboard has games that give a large points value for the time spent to complete it (my name is Mayo etc.) This leaderboard would also just have certain games that would be beneficial to play if you wanted to increase in ranking. People have the choice to play those games if they want to in the same way that people have the choice to skip through vn's etc in order to increase their leaderboard ranking quickly. 

 

If anything the really rare games would be played by more people wanting to improve their ranking on here which in turn would make them less rare anyways.

Edited April 13, 2017 by zajac9999

[Danny_Johansen]

This is what I had in mind in terms of points, 2 formula's are used, 1 for 1-50% and another for <1%. This is so the points from some games aren't brokenly high.

 

 

Can't copy/paste my table? How do you guys do that?

 

https://puu.sh/vjjGc/e957686889.txt

Edited April 13, 2017 by Danny_Johansen

[zajac9999]

@Sly Ripper Is it possible for you to test something like points = 50/rarity? I don't know how long/difficult it would be to implement it.

[dmland12]

49 minutes ago, Danny_Johansen said:

Can't copy/paste my table? How do you guys do that?

 

My table's actually just an image hosted on imgur.  It was printscreened from google spreadsheets where I was playing around with some numbers.

[LeetWolf2]

Really like the idea of this, as I try my best to go for those rarer trophies
My score would be 405,655. Pretty happy with that

I also think the sub 1% trophy idea is good too, I would support something like that

EDIT: Posted before reading Sly's post with a link to an actual leaderboard >.<. It looks great, would prefer Nathaniel's suggestion when it comes to scoring each trophy type. (192nd in the UK is still pretty good though )

Edited April 14, 2017 by LeetWolf2

[mekktor]

I don't have a particular opinion on exactly how it should scale. The only thing I'll say is that I like the simplicity of using the inverse (Points = X/Rarity). I'm talking in terms of both the calculation and comparing different rarities (eg. twice as rare equals twice the points).

 

One thing that I don't agree with though is that the points have to start at 50%. I get that it's the rarity leaderboard so only rare trophies should be rewarded, but that's exactly what the formula can do, even when it starts at 100%. Using the inverse for example, you would still need to earn 9,000 90% trophies to get the same points as one 0.01% trophy. What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't a 90% trophy give you points? You still earned it and it still does have some (albeit small) rarity value attached to it. And why should a 50% trophy give you points while a 51% trophy doesn't? I just think using an arbitrary cut off just adds in complication and inconsistencies for no gain.

[Bumperklever]

11 hours ago, NathanielJohn said:

You know what, the more I think about it, the more I like the simple formula Points = 50/Rarity. Table of values (truncated at Rarity = 0.1%, as per dmland12's suggestion):

 

>50	0
50	1
40	1.25
30	1.67
20	2.5
10	5
5	10
4	12.5
3	16.67
2	25
1	50
0.5	100
0.4	125
0.3	166.67
0.2	250
0.1	500
<0.1	500

 

Just for a reference point. Since sly stated he didn't like the idea of 1 5% trophy having the same worth as 2 10% trophies. I think this wouldn't do it.

 

However, I do like the simplicity of this formula. Would be easier to explain to people who isn't so good at math instead of trying to explain logarithms.

 

 

[Zenodin]

A comparison between @Sly Ripper's exponential formula and the 50/Rarity formula.

 

I'm a bit on the fence about which formula I would prefer ...

Extreme rewards almost solely for the UR trophies as shown in the 50/Rarity formula (and a linear relation between the other results from the 50/Rarity-formula), ... or more points for the Very Rare / Rare trophies in comparison to the UR trophies ... which results in just a few (2 or 3) trophies with a more common rarity being as rewarding as 1 much rarer trophy ...

 

 

 

 

[New display name]

7 minutes ago, Zenodin said:

A comparison between @Sly Ripper's exponential formula and the 50/Rarity formula.

 

I'm a bit on the fence about which formula I would prefer ...

Extreme rewards almost solely for the UR trophies as shown in the 50/Rarity formula (and a linear relation between the other results from the 50/Rarity-formula), ... or more points for the Very Rare / Rare trophies in comparison to the UR trophies ... which results in just a few (2 or 3) trophies with a more common rarity being as rewarding as 1 much rarer trophy ...

 

 

 

 

I personally prefer the 50/rarity formula. It seems to give people a reason to go for the rarest trophies possible. But with Sly's suggested one, it appears to be over rewarding non-ur trophies, which I don't think is a good thing as it will benefit those who happen to have thousands of uncommon trophies and barely any ultra's.

 

Regardless, thanks for quickly acting to try and implement this Sly, much appreciated.

[zajac9999]

1 hour ago, Smithy said:

I personally prefer the 50/rarity formula. It seems to give people a reason to go for the rarest trophies possible. But with Sly's suggested one, it appears to be over rewarding non-ur trophies, which I don't think is a good thing as it will benefit those who happen to have thousands of uncommon trophies and barely any ultra's.

 

^ This 

[AlphaTrash]

2 hours ago, Smithy said:

I personally prefer the 50/rarity formula. It seems to give people a reason to go for the rarest trophies possible. But with Sly's suggested one, it appears to be over rewarding non-ur trophies, which I don't think is a good thing as it will benefit those who happen to have thousands of uncommon trophies and barely any ultra's.

 

Regardless, thanks for quickly acting to try and implement this Sly, much appreciated.

This x2. 

 

You can get high on the rarity leaderboard by doing easy games... nothing says the system is currently broken, more than that. 

If I had my way, trophies above 5% would earn no points as they're too easy and shouldn't counted for the most part.

I've never struggled with an above 5% plat before for example, occasionally there's boosting for an above 5% plat and that can be a little tricky in terms of difficulty.

Normally however if a game is actually hard, it'll be rarer lower than 5%. Not all the time ofc, but most. 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Jeff

[starcrunch061]

19 hours ago, Jeff said:

Nvm, the rarity leaderboard should URs only lmao. It's literally pointless when including everything else. Was so hyped for this too.  

 

What do you mean "Nvm...was so hyped for this, too".

 

It's literally in the first post that all trophies will count. Why would you ever have been "hyped" if the only thing you wanted to see was URs? 

 

But anyway, getting back to the thread, I do agree (albeit reluctantly) with this guy that, as is, the "rarity" leaderboard is flawed. Honestly, though, I do NOT want to see anything that rewards only URs, because that will only open the stupid DLC discussion again.

Edited April 14, 2017 by starcrunch061

[AlphaTrash]

5 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

What do you mean "Nvm...was so hyped for this, too".

 

It's literally in the first post that all trophies will count. Why would you ever have been "hyped" if the only thing you wanted to see was URs? 

His first post was a suggestion, a poor suggestion at that as 50 commons would equal 1 UR, hence why that wasn't used. 

I was hyped for a rarity leaderboard that didn't give high ranks to spam hunters. Unfortunately this leaderboard still gives high ranks to spam hunters. 

 

 

The DLC debate is over. So your point is no longer an argument. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Jeff

[starcrunch061]

6 minutes ago, Jeff said:

The DLC debate is over. So your point is no longer an argument. 

 

What? The DLC debate has been "over" multiple times, as rarity calculations involving DLC have been changed multiple times. I assure you that if the site starts to value UR trophies enough to create a leaderboard based solely on them, posts about tweaking DLC will return.

 

I mean, if the only thing you want to see is a list of UR trophies, why bother with a leaderboard? That's a simple enough stat to check.

Edited April 14, 2017 by starcrunch061

[AlphaTrash]

7 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

What? The DLC debate has been "over" multiple times, as rarity calculations involving DLC have been changed multiple times. I assure you that if the site starts to value UR trophies enough to create a leaderboard based solely on them, posts about tweaking DLC will return.

 

I mean, if the only thing you want to see is a list of UR trophies, why bother with a leaderboard? That's a simple enough stat to check.

Why bother with a leaderboard? How else would people find out who has the most URs and the most valuable set of URs? 

That's interesting to me. 

As for the DLC debate, this is as fair as it's gonna get for the most part so the debate is done.

 

You're essentially saying, we can't have nice things because a minority within a minority within a minority might get upset by it.  

Edited April 14, 2017 by Jeff

[starcrunch061]

16 minutes ago, Jeff said:

You're essentially saying, we can't have nice things because a minority within a minority within a minority might get upset by it.  

 

No. The implication was that I don't want "nice" things because, for me, they're not nice enough to overcome the annoyance of the "bad" that goes with it. I couldn't care less about what the "minority within a minority within a minority" thinks. That's really all there is to it.

 

Are you looking for a debate? You won't find it here. My original point was that your complain seemed misplaced, given the intro to the thread and the ideas hypothesized. I honestly couldn't care less about this "rarity" leaderboard, outside of interest in the numerical aspects of what will ultimately come from it.

 

Speaking of, I'm waiting for "that post" in this thread. I thought you might be the one to give it, when I initially posted, but to your credit, you didn't. So, thanks for that.

 

You'll know it when you see it, though. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by starcrunch061

[AlphaTrash]

25 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

No. The implication was that I don't want "nice" things because, for me, they're not nice enough to overcome the annoyance of the "bad" that goes with it. I couldn't care less about what the "minority within a minority within a minority" thinks. That's really all there is to it.

 

Are you looking for a debate? You won't find it here. My original point was that your complain seemed misplaced, given the intro to the thread and the ideas hypothesized. I honestly couldn't care less about this "rarity" leaderboard, outside of interest in the numerical aspects of what will ultimately come from it.

 

Speaking of, I'm waiting for "that post" in this thread. I thought you might be the one to give it, when I initially posted, but to your credit, you didn't. So, thanks for that.

 

You'll know it when you see it, though. 

 

"No. The implication was that I don't want "nice" things because, for me, they're not nice enough to overcome the annoyance of the "bad" that goes with it. I couldn't care less about what the "minority within a minority within a minority" thinks. That's really all there is to it." Was it fun contradicting yourself in literally the next sentence? 

If you didn't care, like you claim; the 'bad' wouldn't annoy you. You can't have it both ways. 

 

Your original point was my complaint seemed misplaced because you believed the system proposed by the OP was the system enacted, however it wasn't. 

So your original point was meaningless, then your point became a UR leaderboard would be bad become some people would moan... but you and I apparently don't care about those who moan, so there's no problem. 

I'm sure we'll all feel bad for them because they can't be high ranking on every single leaderboard out there, purely for excelling at one aspect of trophy hunting.

To me the rarity leaderboard was meant to shine a light on the hunters that hunted the hardest games out there and the hunters who amassed a huge collection of URs. 

Instead those hunters are swamped by people who have spammed games between 20-10% rarity.

At that point, to me, there's no need for the leaderboard because honestly if I wanted a list of all the hunters not worth paying attention I'd check the top 100 on the regular leaderboard. 

 

A leaderboard dedicated to quality over quantity and the quality of the quantity, is what I wanted, that isn't what we got. 

Hell I'd even be happy with an average rarity leaderboard. 

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Jeff

[starcrunch061]

4 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

"No. The implication was that I don't want "nice" things because, for me, they're not nice enough to overcome the annoyance of the "bad" that goes with it. I couldn't care less about what the "minority within a minority within a minority" thinks. That's really all there is to it." Was it fun contradicting yourself in literally the next sentence? 

If you didn't care, like you claim; the 'bad' wouldn't annoy you. You can't have it both ways. 

 

Man, your narratives are getting tiresome. I don't care what they think, anymore than I care what a racist thinks. What I care about is its manifestation in my presence. That's not "contradiction" or "semantics". I don't seek to change the minds of any person here in regards to DLC or rarity, because...I don't care what s/he think. But if I see posts about it, it annoys me. 

 

4 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Your original point was my complaint seemed misplaced because you believed the system proposed by the OP was the system enacted, however it wasn't. 

So your original point was meaningless

 

Maybe. I didn't really see anything that weighed exclusively to URs in the thread, but it might have been there. I deleted the rest of this, though, because we've covered that ground.

 

4 minutes ago, Jeff said:

A leaderboard dedicated to quality of quantity is what I wanted, that isn't what we got. 

Hell I'd even be happy with an average rarity leaderboard. 

 

Perhaps you'll get what you want.

Edited April 14, 2017 by starcrunch061

[mekktor]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

To me the rarity leaderboard was meant to shine a light on the hunters that hunted the hardest games out there and the hunters who amassed a huge collection of URs. 

 

What happens to a trophy when its rarity drops below 5% that suddenly makes it interesting to you?

[AlphaTrash]

2 minutes ago, mekktor said:

 

What happens to a trophy when its rarity drops below 5% that suddenly makes it interesting to you?

It becomes Ultra Rare, that makes it interesting to me. 

3 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Man, your narratives are getting tiresome. I don't care what they think, anymore than I care what a racist thinks. What I care about is its manifestation in my presence. That's not "contradiction" or "semantics". I don't seek to change the minds of any person here in regards to DLC or rarity, because...I don't care what s/he think. But if I see posts about it, it annoys me. 

 

 

Maybe. I didn't really see anything that weighed exclusively to URs in the thread, but it might have been there. I deleted the rest of this, though, because we've covered that ground.

 

 

Perhaps you'll get what you want.

 

"In my presence" Like you just leave the page with a click of a button. 

All over the internet, people are doing and spewing silly shit I don't agree with. I wouldn't say "well deviant art shouldn't be a thing because think of all the fucking weird people there, we shouldn't give them a reason to express what/how they feel" Or it should be a thing as we should just let whoever has something to say, say whatever they want to say and we can choose to either ignore them and move on or engage them. People are always gonna moan about DLC rarity, sad fucks like me are always gonna want something pandering to URs...

Most people ignoring the people who complain about DLC rarity and most people ignore the UR hunters, hence why there's no leaderboards for them. 

I don't see the problem with more leaderboards. TT has a lot of leaderboards and it makes the site extremely interesting, however the forum is dead so I don't use it. 

 

[mekktor]

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

It becomes Ultra Rare, that makes it interesting to me. 

 

I think you're putting to much importance on the words "Ultra Rare". There is very little difference between a 4.9% trophy and a 5.1% trophy - one just crossed some arbitrary percentage and got a new rarity name, that's all. But whatever, it's not up to me to tell you how to do your trophy hunting.