Jump to content

Game ranks on profiles


Sly Ripper

Recommended Posts

I agree with a default D rank for games that are at 0%. I don't think it will turn people away from the site because they don't like to see that, if it's at )% and on their profile I'm sure they realise it's not much to brag about and a bad grading right lol?

I was just looking at the profiles, and I think it would be nice to be able to sort our games by grade also, in the same we can by percentage. So for grade it would be A's at the top sorted by percentag within A's. I'd like to be able to group all my lower graded ones together and see if there's any I can improve, be nice to see them all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with a default D rank for games that are at 0%. I don't think it will turn people away from the site because they don't like to see that, if it's at )% and on their profile I'm sure they realise it's not much to brag about and a bad grading right lol?

I was just looking at the profiles, and I think it would be nice to be able to sort our games by grade also, in the same we can by percentage. So for grade it would be A's at the top sorted by percentag within A's. I'd like to be able to group all my lower graded ones together and see if there's any I can improve, be nice to see them all together.

You can already sort them by percentage completed...which is almost the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can already sort them by percentage completed...which is almost the same thing.

I have B's thrown in with my A's and C's in with the area with most of my B's. I agree this wouldn't be a super high priority, but I'd still like to see it someday. Instead of sorting maybe we could click on a letter and it take a new page that lists only our games that are ranked with that letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think there definitely needs to be more ranks because the fact that you can get an "A" with 35% doesn't really tell you much about your performance in the game. Also, an average ranking would be pretty cool, because just having the Average Completion doesn't account for the difficulty of the games in question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there definitely needs to be more ranks because the fact that you can get an "A" with 35% doesn't really tell you much about your performance in the game. Also, an average ranking would be pretty cool, because just having the Average Completion doesn't account for the difficulty of the games in question

If getting an A doesn't tell you that you're doing better than average then why would any other ranks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If getting an A doesn't tell you that you're doing better than average then why would any other ranks?

No, I mean if an A can be earned by achieving 35%, then it doesn't tell you where you are in all that much detail as it hands the award to people who have a completion level anywhere within a 65% range. If you added D, E and F grades for example, then you could award the A grade at higher completion levels, giving greater precision to you at a glance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I mean if an A can be earned by achieving 35%, then it doesn't tell you where you are in all that much detail as it hands the award to people who have a completion level anywhere within a 65% range. If you added D, E and F grades for example, then you could award the A grade at higher completion levels, giving greater precision to you at a glance

If the A was at 35%, I don't imagine it changing much after adding a D, E, and F. If you take a look earlier into the thread (actually, it's quoted higher up on this page) you'll see the reasoning for it. It's to match a popular ranking system, so it's traditional in a sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the A was at 35%, I don't imagine it changing much after adding a D, E, and F. If you take a look earlier into the thread (actually, it's quoted higher up on this page) you'll see the reasoning for it. It's to match a popular ranking system, so it's traditional in a sense.

The rankings are based on the %age earned by the player against the average %age for the game. If there are more ranks then you can have narrower bands for each grade, so less variation over the course of the grade. As we have 4 ranks, S, A, B and C then it seems reasonable to assume that each rank represents 25% of players. (S for the top 25%, C for the bottom 25% etc.) By adding just one extra grade, the boundaries for each grade change so that instead each grade represents 20% of the players. So therefore the more grades there are available, the clearer your standing within the community. If, say, 4 more grades were added, then those receiving a 'G' would know that they were in the bottom 12.5% of players whereas at the moment those who would be in that band (and have 'C' ranks) only know that they are in the bottom 25% of players. Notice that under this system, the 'C' rank would apply to those who would have a low 'A' currently.

This assumes that the grades are allocated with an equal number of players per grade, but I trust you get my point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rankings are based on the %age earned by the player against the average %age for the game. If there are more ranks then you can have narrower bands for each grade, so less variation over the course of the grade. As we have 4 ranks, S, A, B and C then it seems reasonable to assume that each rank represents 25% of players. (S for the top 25%, C for the bottom 25% etc.) By adding just one extra grade, the boundaries for each grade change so that instead each grade represents 20% of the players. So therefore the more grades there are available, the clearer your standing within the community. If, say, 4 more grades were added, then those receiving a 'G' would know that they were in the bottom 12.5% of players whereas at the moment those who would be in that band (and have 'C' ranks) only know that they are in the bottom 25% of players. Notice that under this system, the 'C' rank would apply to those who would have a low 'A' currently.

This assumes that the grades are allocated with an equal number of players per grade, but I trust you get my point

That doesn't quite work out the way you think. Say only one out of one hundred guys has a Platinum for a game. That S only represents 1% of the players. It's all dependent on everyone else's percentage, so you can't really generalize the amount of players to a letter grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't quite work out the way you think. Say only one out of one hundred guys has a Platinum for a game. That S only represents 1% of the players. It's all dependent on everyone else's percentage, so you can't really generalize the amount of players to a letter grade.

No, I realise that the grades don't have equal %ages, I just used that as an example to illustrate my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
  • 7 months later...

I'd make it alphabetical, because right now I have no idea what rank is higher than other xD (S maybe?).

Let's say A for the best, B for the second best, then C, D, E...

The rankings are as followed (from highest to lowest)

 

S, A, B, C, D, E, F

 

You can only get an S for 100% a game, while in the overwhelming majority of times the only time you can get an F is if you have 0%.  This ranking system mimics some games such as the Naruto games and Resident Evil 5, to mention a few, so it is not out of ordinary.

 

Hope this helps  :awesome:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

This is true, but don't let this stop you getting games with DLC or buying DLC that you do not want.  Ultimately your level depends on how many trophies and what types of trophies you have, not how many 100% you have.

so, if a game has dlc's and i won't get them , can't get a S rank?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...
13 minutes ago, kiki said:

Apres sa serais bien faire un rang sur tous les joueurs psn et non du site psn profil


Please post in English. You can use a translate tool like Google Translate if you need to.

 

Quote

After its would be well to rank on all psn players and not on the psn profile site

 

Yes, that might be nice, but that would be a LOT of data that I doubt Sony would appreciate people pulling without permission.

 

And Sony doesn't even remove accounts that go from level 0 to 100+ instantly, so there would be no point in ranking everyone.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...