Rarity Leaderboard

[dmsleight]

15 hours ago, dmland12 said:

 

That's not what sly ended up using.  Here's a link again to a calculator/spreadsheet I made using the formula that's currently being used.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FQjiwTgI8e3W9ABRSUl92LjSRZXj8xQGHkT3v35n07U/edit?usp=sharing

 

Thanks, thats quite a bit different.  All the points are tied up on less than 1%.  It also explains why uncommons are so valuable with such a gradual incline.

[zajac9999]

I was just looking at the rarity leaderboard and noticed that private profiles are still on there for some reason. This includes several people in the top 50, including the 'top' guy, which makes me think they are probably accounts with several hacked games. Is it possible to have these accounts with 0 trophies showing removed from the leaderboards unless they makes their trophies public again @Sly Ripper?

[BlindMango]

31 minutes ago, zajac9999 said:

I was just looking at the rarity leaderboard and noticed that private profiles are still on there for some reason. This includes several people in the top 50, including the 'top' guy, which makes me think they are probably accounts with several hacked games. Is it possible to have these accounts with 0 trophies showing removed from the leaderboards unless they makes their trophies public again @Sly Ripper?

 

That was a bug with the main leaderboard when the new site update released, he'd probably have to fix that if he released the rarity leaderboard as a feature 

[zajac9999]

On 8/27/2017 at 11:46 PM, BlindMango said:

 

That was a bug with the main leaderboard when the new site update released, he'd probably have to fix that if he released the rarity leaderboard as a feature 

Do you know if there are any plans to have the rarity leaderboard released as a feature?

[BlindMango]

7 hours ago, zajac9999 said:

Do you know if there are any plans to have the rarity leaderboard released as a feature?

 

Hmm, I dunno - Thats up to Sly 

[Sly Ripper]

11 hours ago, zajac9999 said:

Do you know if there are any plans to have the rarity leaderboard released as a feature?

 

Not with the current algorithm 

[Bezenko]

On 31.8.2017 at 0:39 AM, Sly Ripper said:

 

Not with the current algorithm 

 

Any news on this?

 

I love the idea of a rarity leaderboard and I use the current one a few times every week, I do agree the current algorithm definitely need some tweaking though.

[dmsleight]

It would be great to be able to sort by console too, like the regular leaderboard.  Hope this hasn't gotten scratched.

[KaKrackle]

Although I’m fairly new to trophy hunting, I almost exclusively hunt ultra rares. The more sub 1% trophies I see in a list, the better. The idea of having ‘super’ or ‘hyper’ rare trophies is awsome if you ask me. It would make my shit completion rates more acceptable...

[JorgeSleep]

The rarity leaderboard is full of cheaters It's a pity that haven't worked on it to maintain and update it.

[ProfBambam55]

i'm working at home today crunching numbers and this kind of thing and i just had a totally random idea...i'm not even sure if it makes sense as i haven't given it much thought...apologies if it's already been thought of...let me guys know what you think...

 

what if the rarity leaderboard was divided in categories without tweaking values too much?...for example,

what if there was an ultra rare, rare, common, uncommon leaderboard?...

 

how it could work...

you calculate the average rarity of only one category of trophies for each person...then you give each trophy a value of 1...you take the opposite equivalent percentage for that category and multiply by number of trophies earned within it...what this would look like :

 

let's say gamer 1 has an average ur rarity of 1.17% over 50 earned ur trophies and gamer 2 has an average ur rarity of 3.2% over 100 ur trophies earned...

 

the math:

first off, to be clear, ultra rare is defined by sony and psnprofiles as 0 - 5%...

 

player 1 - opposite of 1.17% would be : 5 - 1.17 = 3.83

now multiply by 50 (# of earned ultra rares)...we get 191.5...

player a's ur score is 191.5...

 

player 2 - opposite of 3.2% would be : 5 - 3.2 = 1.8

multiply by 100 (number of earned ultra rares) and we get 180...

player b's ur score is 180...

 

again, just a quick thought here...would it work?...and could it be applied to all categories of rarity?...

 

the logic is that more trophies = higher up...and the more rare the trophies also puts you up higher...so the person with the most ultra rares and lowest average rarity within a said category will be first...

 

i'm not sure if this would work if we then combined scores from all categories...i'll need to actually give it some thought...i get a feeling this whole thing is a bad idea though...i'll have to look at what the numbers actually mean by testing out some profiles...my instinct is that it would basically be taking opposite rarity of 100% the way it is now and multiplying by number of trophies but that's based only on instinct, not math so could be false...to be continued...

Edited March 24, 2018 by ProfBambam55

[xZoneHunter]

On 31-8-2017 at 0:39 AM, Sly Ripper said:

 

Not with the current algorithm 

 

Is this ever going to be revived?

Edited April 14, 2019 by xZoneHunter

[TheYuriG]

On 30/08/2017 at 7:39 PM, Sly Ripper said:

Not with the current algorithm 

I doubt you gonna release this anytime soon, but can you at least just rescan the rarity board so it can remove the cheaters? Shouldn't take you more than 5 minutes to do so, just refresh it and make the people with hidden trophies leave the board, it should be quick to do.

 

I've been Brazil's second for over a year now, with a hacker above me, while also being 40+ world because of how many hackers are there on the main board.

 

At least if you aren't going to fix it, just remove those hidden trophies profiles, it should output the same result as I'm guessing they will also be removed.

[Sinthoras_96]

Yeah cleaning this up a little would be nice^^

[JeromeSpree]

EDIT 4: removed most of the first propositions to make it more clear.

 

The formula here is based on both the points earned through Sony's trophy system and the rarity type of trophy from this site with additional subdivisions for trophies over 75% rarity and trophies under 5% rarity.

 

Bronzes, silvers, golds and then platinums award your PSN profile respectively 15, 30, 90, and 180 points. Simplified it would make 1, 2, 6, and 12 points.

 

The rarity then comes into play as a proportional multiplier based on the maximum average.

 

Trophies with a rarity average over 75% would be applied a 0 multiplier making them irrelevant for the total points. I chose 75% because it is the median for common trophies and it is also the rarity ceiling first thought for the 'ribbons of effort'.

 

To then get subdivisions inside the ultra rare trophy category I chose 2.5% and 1% because they are significant numbers (2.5 being half of 5 and under 1% trophies are the most charismatic trophies out there) and the multipliers applied to them are whole numbers.

 

To summarize:

 

- bronze trophy: 1 point

- silver trophy: 2 points

- gold trophy: 6 points

- platinum trophy: 12 points

 

Average rarity multipliers:

 

From 100% to 75%: trophy points multiplied by 0 (a platinum over 75% would get no point - 12 x 0)

From 75% to 50%: trophy points multiplied by 1

From 50% to 20%: trophy points multiplied by 2

From 20% to 10%: trophy points multiplied by 5

From 10% to 5%: trophy points multiplied by 10

From 5% to 2.5%: trophy points multiplied by 20

From 2.5% to 1%: trophy points multiplied by 40

Under 1%: trophy points multiplied by 100 (a platinum under 1% would get 1200 points - 12 x 100).

Edited July 5, 2019 by JeromeSpree

[dmland12]

On 8/30/2017 at 5:39 PM, Sly Ripper said:

Not with the current algorithm 

 

If we're talking formulas again, how about just a nice, simple....

 

1/x - 1, rounded down

 

Examples:

50% (0.5):  For every person that has the trophy, 1 person doesn't.  1 point

10% (0.1):  For every person that has the trophy, 9 don't.  9 points

5% (0.05): For every person that has the trophy, 19 don't.  19 points

1% (0.01): For every person that has the trophy, 99 don't.  99 points

0.5% (0.005):  For every person that has the trophy, 199 don't.  199 points

0.1% (0.001): For every person that has the trophy, 999 don't.  999 points

 

Your resulting score would just be your cumulative share of the people who didn't get the trophies that you got.  Easy enough to understand as far as these things go.

No decimals, if rounded down.

No ugly, convoluted formulas.

No need to cap it at 50%, as anything above 50% will equal 0, if rounded down.

 

If you wanted, you could cap it at 500 or 1000 points max per trophy, if you're concerned about the rarest end.  As it is, it could go up to 9999 pts for a 0.01% rarity trophy.

[Kal2210]

I still like this numerical idea better than a ribbon system. As of now, it is very difficult to get a sense of a profile based on plat count and the leaderboards are filled with stacks on stacks of ezpzs. A numerical leaderboard with a weighting formula based on rarity (and ideally took away stacks) would be a tremendous alternative for those frustrated with the current system. The standard leaderboard can go on living without any changes and people can follow whichever board they like. I know the algorithm is challenging to make, but this really does feel like the best solution.

 

EXAMPLE NUMBERS: (cutoffs made by looking at popular AAA game percentages)

>75% could give almost no points (.1x multiplier), 40-75% modest (.75x multiplier), 20-40% moderate (2x multiplier), 5-20% significant (4x multiplier), 1-5% heavy (8x multiplier), <1% jackpot (15x multiplier).

Edited June 24, 2019 by Kal2210

[patrickogorman19]

This leaderboard still isn't apart of the main leaderboard. Should be a part of the main leaderboard section.

[MsieurSeb]

Hello @Sly Ripper,

 

I find the idea and very good. She is missed at the site. I think it's important to put forward a player who won Platinum in Wolfenstein 2 than someone who won 10 Platinum Ratalaika.

We all know that you have a lot of work and we thank you, but I hope that this request will be taken into account.

 

 

Sorry for my bad english ;(

 

Thank you ! ?

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by MsieurSeb

[Dreggit]

On 9/2/2020 at 11:45 PM, patrickogorman19 said:

This leaderboard still isn't apart of the main leaderboard. Should be a part of the main leaderboard section.

A calculation was never decided and so was never implemented  yes there exists a rough leaderboard presently on an old calculation, but nothing was ever decided on to my knowledge. There were however several good ideas in the thread from some years ago

[MsieurSeb]

22 hours ago, Dreggit said:

A calculation was never decided and so was never implemented  yes there exists a rough leaderboard presently on an old calculation, but nothing was ever decided on to my knowledge. There were however several good ideas in the thread from some years ago

 

Hello, Do you think @Sly Ripper thinks about it or he gave up on the idea?

[NathanielJohn]

I imagine that the old discussion where we all argued about what the formula should be, but no one could seem to agree on how extreme the formula could be, soured the development of this feature a bit. What's the point of spending time implementing a feature, if people are just going to complain and be unhappy with it regardless of how you implement it?

 

I still think that the simple "Points = 500/RarityPercentage" formula (with a cutoff somewhere, maybe 0.1%) works best. It makes it so that a 5% rarity trophy is worth exactly two 10% rarity trophies, for example.

[MsieurSeb]

On 11/10/2020 at 6:26 PM, NathanielJohn said:

I imagine that the old discussion where we all argued about what the formula should be, but no one could seem to agree on how extreme the formula could be, soured the development of this feature a bit. What's the point of spending time implementing a feature, if people are just going to complain and be unhappy with it regardless of how you implement it?

 

I still think that the simple "Points = 500/RarityPercentage" formula (with a cutoff somewhere, maybe 0.1%) works best. It makes it so that a 5% rarity trophy is worth exactly two 10% rarity trophies, for example.

Why not rely on PTL ?!

[kinnswaget]

Hello! I read the entire thread. Perhaps the initial idea on the leaderboard only for rare trophies is different from what I want to tell you. But I saw 3-4 comments from people who would be closer to exactly this approach that I implemented. I hope there are players here with similar thoughts and it would be interesting to hear what they think. I would like to share how I solved the issue of encouraging players playing more difficult games on my website. I apologize in advance if any of my phrases seem incomprehensible. Know that everything is to blame - google translate

 

First, I refused to give points for every single trophy. This format was discussed here. Secondly, I realized that linking to rarity alone is not enough, since rarity does not equal difficulty. Thirdly, I didn't want to somehow divide the calculation of points into groups with certain coefficients. I mean that it is not the author of the formula who decides that game A will be with coefficient 2, but game B with coefficient 8. But that these coefficients depend on the opinion of many people.

The result was the following formula:
(100-a)*b, where
a - percentage by YGS (or psnprofiles if it were implemented here) of the rarest dlc / base game trophy
b - estimate of the difficulty of the dlc / base game
The player receives points only when he has earned all the trophies for a particular dlc or base game.

 

Difficulty can be assessed only by the player who has the given game. The final "weight" of the rating is influenced by the player's progress in the game: the more progress, the more the player will affect the rating. If interested, I will describe the formula separately.

Example # 1 (base game):
LIMBO
Difficulty rating - 5.9. The rarest trophy has 14.78%. We get
(100-14.78)*5.9 = 503 - this is how many points the player will get if he knocks out 100% of the base game

Example # 2 (dlc):
Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 - Classified
Difficulty rating - 4. The rarest trophy has 14.89%. We get
(100-14.89)*4 = 340 - this is how many points the player will get if he knocks out 100% in this dlc.

 

Bonus # 1

My name is Mayo

Difficulty rating - 1. The rarest trophy has 96.19%. We get
(100-96.19)*1 = 4

 

Bonus # 2 (base game)

Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus

Difficulty rating - 9.5. The rarest trophy has 5.03%. We get
(100-5.03)*9.5 = 902

 

Note: There is currently a slight discrepancy in the calculations on the YGS website with rarity and score rating. This is a bug. We will fix it soon.

One dlc / one base game can be worth from 0 to 1000 points.

Pros of this system:

- takes into account the quality of trophies, not their quantity. Now it makes no sense to beat 50 platinum just for the sake of these platinum in games like Slyde, and even in different regions;

- the more difficult the game and the lower the rarity of the trophies, the more points the player can get. Rarity and difficulty complement each other. Therefore, if the dlc / game is considered difficult, but at the same time "every second" player knocks out 100% there, the player will receive fewer points. Or vice versa, more rare, but simple games will also receive fewer points;

- points are given by absolutely all dlc / base games 100% completed. There is no distinction between only "hardcore" and only "simple" or only "common" and only "rare". Are you casual and love games like Marvel's Spider Man? Wonderful! Get your points for them. Doing only the hardest levels of Badland? Perfectly! Get points too. In this case, the first player will have to knock out 24 games of the Marvel's Spider Man level in order to catch up with the second with the only Badland.

 

Minuses:
- the system may not appeal to those who have been striving for the TOP ratings for years and focused more on games with affordable platinum. If we are talking about the main rating;
- the dlc / game must have at least one difficulty rating for the site to calculate rating points. No score - no points;

- I think this is more of a plus, but someone may not like the fact that you need to close the game / dlc 100%. It seems to me that this is an important idea that distinguishes the average gamer from the trophy hunter.

 

What do you think?

[FawltyPowers]

29 minutes ago, kinnswaget said:

What do you think?

 

What you're suggesting is not a rarity leaderboard as you're adding in difficulty and as you say that would mean every game would have to be given a difficulty rating for it to receive a score.

 

How is that managed, by one person or many, that in itself will cause both upset (why does that game only have a 4/10 when that game has a 5/10, doesn't matter now but it would if it's used in a calculation of a score that changes your position on a leaderboard) and of course maintenance of those scores. If the score is given by multiple users then you need to add in a new feature, that in itself has been discussed before and nothing has come of it. Also, what's to stop those who play a Rata game of giving it a 10/10 rating to increase the score?

 

Whatever the solution is it should be based on the actual rarity figures. A calculation based off the data that is already there.