Does the Trophy System Need an Overhaul?

[Varhur]

1 minute ago, crauuecrauue said:

Pretty sure developers would be far happier to read about 15% of players exploring for exploration’s sake and discovering the secrets on their own over a few weeks than about 20% of players boosting for a weekend while watching a walkthrough and never touching their game again because all they cared about was checking off a list.

 

Play doesn’t require a set of bright yellow goalposts for every interaction to be viable, and keeping the goalposts hidden doesn’t preclude walkthroughs helping other players eventually. Plus, sharing your discoveries and hearing or reading others’ reactions, on top of stories of their own, is infinitely more satisfying than just having a value assigned objectively stating “yep, this is rare, but you knew that before didn’t you?”.

Players discover what are the trophies and how to get them, secret stops being secrets, players complain why it is even hidden in the first place and we're back at starting point.

 

Also, 20% of the players boosting? What gave you that idea, tiny fraction of the PSN users making sessions here? Seriously?

[zenunlime73]

I totally agree with you. Harder plats should get more value (points) than easier ones. I would have a lot more plats, but I prefer to go after ones that are hard and are more rare. It would be nice to know that my dedication gets the recognition is deserves. On a side note, I don't know if it has been already mentioned or explained as to why its not available, but I would like to see a trophy progression stat, so that I can see how far I am to completing a trophy (kind of like Xbox, maybe that's why PS doesn't have it due to some sort of copyright, idk).

 

Also off topic, but for the same reasons you mentioned is the same reason Sony ended the Trophy Pass system for Sony Rewards. People were just only playing the same easy games and racking up points. Not gonna lie it was a smart idea and probably was great income for the indie game developers, but Sony should implement the same idea (maybe slightly tweaked for the Trophy Pass system) you have.

[crauuecrauue]

6 minutes ago, Varhur said:

Players discover what are the trophies and how to get them, secret stops being secrets, players complain why it is even hidden in the first place and we're back at starting point.

 

Also, 20% of the players boosting? What gave you that idea, tiny fraction of the PSN users making sessions here? Seriously?

Why so confrontational? Seriously?

 

I’m not claiming to quote a verified statistic, it’s just supposed to represent a slightly larger percentage of people who’ve discovered the secrets and benefit my argument that a developer would be happier with fewer people discovering the secrets through emergent discovery than through grinding away at a list.

 

Also players complaining about trophies is always and will always be the most meaningless conversation in the universe. Were not back at the starting point, were leaving people behind who care more about a checklist than the interactive art and entertainment they’re attached to.

[Varhur]

4 minutes ago, crauuecrauue said:

Why so confrontational? Seriously?

 

I’m not claiming to quote a verified statistic, it’s just supposed to represent a slightly larger percentage of people who’ve discovered the secrets and benefit my argument that a developer would be happier with fewer people discovering the secrets through emergent discovery than through grinding away at a list.

 

Also players complaining about trophies is always and will always be the most meaningless conversation in the universe. Were not back at the starting point, were leaving people behind who care more about a checklist than the interactive art and entertainment they’re attached to.

I meant that if your idea of trophy system would be true, then players would eventually discover the trophy list, secret's lost and it's the same situation as before. Yes, there would be less trophy hunters, but is that a good thing? Short games don't have to be bad games.

[fastflowdaman]

Surprised no one mentioned this, but I'm not sure how this idea is supposed to be new.

 

This is pretty much exactly what TruTrophees has been doing for years now, and I'm all for it.

The novelty would be for Sony to adopt this system like they adopted rarity from PSNP, but this has already been discussed many times as well.

 

Ppl complaining about elitism and stuff, I don't know where you're coming from. Sounds like asking for petitions to nerf trophy requirements. How exactly would you be at a disadvantage? Simply because your 100 shitty plats were no longer on par with 100 hard-earned plats?

 

And before you start feeling too offended (whoever needs to feel offended by this), I also auto-popped Sound Shapes and I'd do it again. There's also absolutely nothing wrong with stacking a game you enjoyed on Vita and PS4, for example.

Imo, there is something wrong with speeding thru VNs or stacking plats just for the hell of it (“this game easy?“ threads, anyone?), but I'm not the one to judge that. You do you. You wallow in your addiction how you see fit, I'll do the same.

 

There would be absolutely no harm done, everyone could still go for their favored type of games or plats, but level and ranking would finally mean something again and not be a sole representation of money and time at hand.

Edited April 10, 2019 by fastflowdaman
I auto-popped SS (and Sly 4), I didn't stack it. Corrected.

[Blood-Stalker1]

4 hours ago, thefourfoldroot said:

This is why I only really care about platinum trophies to be honest 

Dude if you go for platinum you definitely came across a few that you see my point 

[majob]

1 hour ago, fastflowdaman said:

but level and ranking would finally mean something again and not be a sole representation of money and time at hand.

Rankings always have been a representation of time at hand and money. Those with disposable income can buy more games and those with an excess of free time can play longer than others. I have no idea why you think this fact would change if trophies were given more value in terms of their rarity when those with the money to buy games and with the free time to play them can carry on business as usual.

[Tekyumeeee]

I'm on board with more strict, clear guidelines as to what kind of game can have a platinum. But I don't think Sony will ever put forth the effort to regulate that. Other than that, I've always liked trophies as they are. I've always thought they were better than just a pure points system.

[fastflowdaman]

3 minutes ago, majob said:

Rankings always have been a representation of time at hand and money. Those with disposable income can buy more games and those with an excess of free time can play longer than others. I have no idea why you think this fact would change if trophies were given more value in terms of their rarity when those with the money to buy games and with the free time to play them can carry on business as usual.

 

While this is partially true, there'd be a difference, especially if something like a devaluation or nullification of e.g. common trophies came into play.

 

There's also the thing of the rarest trophy earned displayed in any game you played on PS4. This could be expanded for comparison purposes as well.

 

And so on.

Use your brain and be creative and you'll get the idea you're missing.

[Wavergray]

Nah it's fine as it is. Maybe add a out of game tracker like Xbox has, but that's about it.

I will say that it weird that people are trying to change anything based on "rarity" since most plats are "Ultra Rare" or "Very Rare" based on PSN rarity. So all that would happen is that everyone's PSN level would balloon up and that's it. We would still be in the same situation, but everyone's PSN "number" would be higher.

[majob]

33 minutes ago, fastflowdaman said:

 

While this is partially true, there'd be a difference, especially if something like a devaluation or nullification of e.g. common trophies came into play.

 

There's also the thing of the rarest trophy earned displayed in any game you played on PS4. This could be expanded for comparison purposes as well.

 

And so on.

Use your brain and be creative and you'll get the idea you're missing.

You're under the presumption that the devaluation of "common" games will suddenly make the rankings change from reflecting those with time and money when the reality is that those with time and money can still put time and effort into those games at a better rate than others regardless. It all boils down to you thinking that "easier" games being less valuable will suddenly propel people who play "harder" games irregardless of that factor and I simply told you that isn't true. Rankings are a reflection of those with money to buy multiple games and the time they have to collect their trophies. Changing what games matter won't change these factors unless you somehow think that these people are only playing easy games exclusively. As many have said, there simply aren't "enough" of those games to impact rankings that heavily and regardless, what one plays shouldn't penalize them in the first place. You're essentially telling people they need to buy and play certain games or they don't deserve to be in the same circle as you, and that's textbook elitism.

Edited April 10, 2019 by majob

[AJ_Radio]

The PSN trophy rarity system is shit. However it’s not lying, it takes everybody with a PSN account who has said game, not just people here on PSNPROFILES. 

 

The rarities here on this website are a lot more reflective of what rarities should represent. 

 

You have Marvel’s Spider-Man which is still a common platinum because it’s easy. Also you have to take into account that certain games like Bloodborne, while they can be pretty tough, have a rather high platinum trophy percentage because the game was good enough to see people sticking with it. 

 

I know ton of games on PSN that are very rare and ultra rare in their trophy percentages that are in no shape or form all that difficult. That just means that a lot of people probably just played these games for 20 - 30 minutes, then dropped them and moved on. A lot of niche games are that way because they specifically cater to a certain audience. 

 

Marvel’s Spider-Man is catered to the general public, therefore I know why a lot of people are still playing it. Spider Man himself is one of the most famous comic book heroes of all time. 

 

1 hour ago, majob said:

You're under the presumption that the devaluation of "common" games will suddenly make the rankings change from reflecting those with time and money when the reality is that those with time and money can still put time and effort into those games at a better rate than others regardless. It all boils down to you thinking that "easier" games being less valuable will suddenly propel people who play "harder" games irregardless of that factor and I simply told you that isn't true. Rankings are a reflection of those with money to buy multiple games and the time they have to collect their trophies. Changing what games matter won't change these factors unless you somehow think that these people are only playing easy games exclusively. As many have said, there simply aren't "enough" of those games to impact rankings that heavily and regardless, what one plays shouldn't penalize them in the first place. You're essentially telling people they need to buy and play certain games or they don't deserve to be in the same circle as you, and that's textbook elitism.

 

What I highlighted bold for you, you pretty much put the nail in the coffin.

 

That’s what rankings boil down to. 

[thefourfoldroot]

8 hours ago, Blood-Stalker1 said:

Dude if you go for platinum you definitely came across a few that you see my point 

Yes, but my point is that for me all trophies are merely a step on the way to platinum. The colour is irrelevant to me if it is not platinum. I realise this is subjective, but my feeling is that once I've got the plat the game is finished, before that it's not. It's that binary for me. Others are different, they may value gold trophies too, as you do. That's fine too. Others feel they need to get all the DLC trophies to fully finish a game. That's fine too. Just giving my feelings is all.

 

It occurs to me that, if people really wanted trophy ranks to mean anything, they would suggest facial recognition, or maybe having thumbprint recognition on PS5 controllers, as necessary to unlock a trophy on a profile. A far bigger issue than stacking is people using shareplay or just getting others to get trophies for them.

Even on these type of sites you hear people unashamedly tell of how they let others play on their profile.

I'm a bit OCD and don't allow this, but I'm sure everyone at the top of the leaderboards share profiles, otherwise they must not sleep.

Edited April 11, 2019 by thefourfoldroot

[fastflowdaman]

7 hours ago, majob said:

what one plays shouldn't penalize them in the first place. You're essentially telling people they need to buy and play certain games or they don't deserve to be in the same circle as you, and that's textbook elitism.

 

You're only proving that you're either not reading correctly or that you're not able to process what you read.

 

I won't go over everything again, just a few notes.

 

Penalizing - this is what shows the stupid attitude behind all this.

1. It's not a punishment, it's a leaderboard or a level system.

2. If you want to look at it like a punishment if you are lower in rank than somebody else who did something with more effort, then go ahead. This is typical snowflake behavior. It's like two people writing a test and both demanding the same mark regardless of the result. It's like two people applying for a job with different qualifications, but both should have the same chance of being hired. It's - ridiculous.

 

Telling ppl what to play - I'm not telling shit to anybody.

What about “You do you“ did you not understand?

 

In my circle, elitism - I said I auto-popped SoundShapes, which is a no-go to so-called elitists. IDGAF. I'm playing easy and medium to medium-hard games. Mostly easy and short games during the last months due to not having the time to dedicate to longer / harder games.

There are a lot of ppl who achieve stuff I'd never be able to pull off. Those ppl would always be ahead on such a leaderboard.

And here we are. LEADERBOARD, TROPHIES, LEVEL, ACHIEVEMENT, RANK. Do those expressions ring a bell? It's not a snowflake contest. Achievement and effort should be honored on a leaderboard.

Feeling punished because you're not allowed to have the same rank like anyone else or somebody who put in more work than you is characteristic for the snowflake behavior that's all too present nowadays.

Perfectly portrayed in the SouthPark episode Sarcastaball.

 

 

Ofc there's a ton of crap that needed to be ironed out - hackers, share play etc. And there would always be ppl handing their controller to others to do certain stuff for them. But that'd be negligible in comparison to the situation at hand.

And the profiles earning trophies in a way only shared profiles would be able to pull off - earning trophies 24 hours a day, earning trophies simultaneously - would be discernible quite easily.

 

Yeah, the few notes went on longer than expected, I guess.

[kenseizenkai]

14 hours ago, Undead Wolf said:

I've seen a lot of people say they like the current system but wish Sony cared more about quality control and had better standards when it comes to which games are allowed platinum trophies. I agree that this would be the best solution, but I don't see them going back to the way things used to be. Besides, are things too far gone at this point? I mean just think about how many easy, sub 1 hour plats there are now. Even if Sony did start to care about preserving the value of trophies once again, that doesn't change the fact that tens, maybe even over a hundred of these games are available on the store now if you take into consideration all the different stacks. The suggestion I made in the OP is a way for the trophy system to gain value once again without requiring Sony to take action against these developers who are out to make a quick buck from trophy whores.

 

As for my suggestion about having the EXP value given from a trophy depend on the rarity, I've thought about how that could be expanded upon. First of all, it would require a "fix" to the current PSN rarity. As people have rightly pointed out, most platinums on PSN are considered rare even when they're actually quite easy due to all the non-trophy hunters and people who play a game for an hour or so before stopping. It's just a thought, but maybe people who only have something like 20% or less of the trophies in a game wouldn't count in the overall equation. Maybe then the PSN rarity would be a little more accurate as it would only take into account people who were serious about playing the game.

 

Secondly, I propose some kind of tiered system that a game can fall into depending on the rarity of its platinum. What I mean by this is that all games with an ultra rare platinum would have a set amount of EXP assigned to each trophy, very rare would have different EXP values, and so on. For example...

 

Games with an 'ultra rare' platinum:

 = 360 points

 = 180 points

 = 60 points

 = 30 points

 

Games with a 'common' platinum:

 = 60 points

 = 30 points

 = 10 points

 = 5 points

 

So essentially every game comes with a platinum as standard but the trophies in that game are valued depending on how rare the platinum is. I hope that makes sense to everyone.

If we do it like that, it would look something like this (just an idea):

                 COMMON     UNCOMMON     RARE     VERY RARE     ULTRA RARE

BRONZE        2pts.              4pts.             6pts.           8pts.                10pts.

SILVER         10pts.             20pts.           30pts.         40pts.               50pts.

GOLD           20pts.             40pts.           60pts.         80pts.              100pts.

PLATINUM     25pts.             50pts.           75pts.        100pts.             125pts.

 

                                                             OR

 

There can be another trophy, and trophies can be valued by how rare they are e.g.:

BRONZE=COMMON (10pts.)

SILVER=UNCOMMON (50pts.)

GOLD=RARE (100pts.)

DIAMOND=VARY RARE (125pts.)

PLATINUM=ULTRA RARE (150pts.)

Which means if a games has multiple ultra rare trophies, they should be platinum. For 100% trophy (you get it when you collect all other trophies, which is platinum now), again it should be valued how rare it is. If 100% is a common trophy is should be bronze, for uncommon, silver, etc. Just an idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                        

                                      

                                       

                                       

                                       

[Timo425]

On 4/10/2019 at 11:14 AM, FawltyPowers said:

I think it's time now for Sony to insist all games feature a platinum for consistencies sake or at least have a standard that games have to adhere to in order to feature a platinum trophy. It's turning into a complete mess.

 

Other than that I think the trophy system works well, however, this is what Sony should do for the PS5 and I'd be surprised if they aren't doing already (except for point 4 as it's just wishful thinking):

 

1) Progress indicator next to each trophy. 1000 kills needed then lets see 0/1000 next to the trophy.

2) Total time playing the game. We know this is already an unseen feature in the background. This would be a nice addition to the trophy list.

3) More statistics. I know this site is built on statistics and we love to see them. Time to have some visuals on the PS5.

 

4) I would like multiplayer pvp trophies to be removed. Multiplayer trophies completely devalue the multiplayer experience for those who just want to play the game normally. People who play multiplayer pvp are doing it to try and top leaderboards, they don't care about trophies. Have an online leaderboard rank on their profile instead. Imagine being able to see a leaderboard rank on here and the competition that would create. For games that are just pvp then the game would still be added to your profile but there would be no trophies and instead just an online rank.

 

I agree with you completely on all the points! Though I think dropping multiplayer trophies completely is unrealistic, I think all online trophies should have a difficulty cap in a way that no boosting is required and everyone can get the trophies by playing normally.. but I suppose this is also unrealistic. The reality is that as long as there are very difficult and/or grindy online trophies, it will hurt the real multiplayer and also be annoying for trophy hunters themselves.

That and for the love of god please remove shovelware Sony...

 

On 4/10/2019 at 11:54 AM, Spaz said:

 

PSN Trophy Leaders already does this:

 

https://(URL not allowed)/

 

There is a leaderboard rankings for rarity. Probably the only thing I really value aside from Completist.

 

This is what I have always wanted since 2009! Thank you so much! My dream has finally come true.  By the way I think the rarity leaderboard still needs some work because I'm #536 mostly due to DCUO (PS3), while it took me and my friend 20 months to grind out that bad boy, over 500k points for rarity is still a bit too much I think.. But nevertheless, amazing site.  I have always been a completionist kind of trophy hunter, set to 100% every single game I play, now I have a real leaderboard to follow and climb. 

I'm still trying to figure out how the completionist table scoring works, I assume it still takes difficulty into account? Weird that the difficulty ceiling for games is so low though, for example Batman: Arkham City and DCUO have almost no difference, really?

Edited April 11, 2019 by Timo425

[Gommes_]

10 hours ago, majob said:

 As many have said, there simply aren't "enough" of those games to impact rankings that heavily and regardless, what one plays shouldn't penalize them in the first place. You're essentially telling people they need to buy and play certain games or they don't deserve to be in the same circle as you, and that's textbook elitism.

 

Well, when this whole game started these people weren't even in that circle. Some just never saw the purpose of achievements, until publishers saw the chance to make cash with easy platinums and with the new player base. Maybe it's textbook elitism, cause trophy hunting was elitist to begin with. It encouraged you to do more than the average player who just finished a game. This aspect is kinda gone. You don't need to go the extra mile anymore to pile up platinums.

 

This is why we have threads like that and discuss this topic so many times. Simply because our hobby changed drastically within our own bubble. It is absolutely normal for most gamers to point out that mictrotransactions are bad for the industry e.g. Why should it be different when it comes to trophy hunting? Or when franchises head in another direction? When countless season passes come out? Etc?

 

These issues could be ignored but than you never face the possible problems that could rise with certain changes. And to be honest, if you are not vocal about anything you probably never really cared about it to begin with.

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Gommes_

[AJ_Radio]

2 hours ago, fastflowdaman said:

2. If you want to look at it like a punishment if you are lower in rank than somebody else who did something with more effort, then go ahead. This is typical snowflake behavior. It's like two people writing a test and both demanding the same mark regardless of the result. It's like two people applying for a job with different qualifications, but both should have the same chance of being hired. It's - ridiculous.

 

Further indication that we take trophy hunting far too seriously. 

 

I would much rather see somebody with 10 very impressive platinums than somebody with 100 piece of shit games that they whipped up in 30 - 60 minutes. 

 

The rankings don’t mean anything to some people because the latter is what applies. Someone with 300 platinums? Big deal if most of those were very easy games, especially if they stacked them. 

 

Yeah, the guy with more platinums has a higher rank. The guy with only 10 plays games he probably invested a lot of time in. 

 

I don’t think he was trying to put this as simply punishment, because we all play games differently. 

 

2 hours ago, fastflowdaman said:

There are a lot of ppl who achieve stuff I'd never be able to pull off. Those ppl would always be ahead on such a leaderboard.

 

That’s the way it’s always been. Doesn’t matter if it’s sports, video games, marathons or whatever. 

 

There will always be someone better than you. You just have to do the best you can and if that isn’t enough to reach an achievement, then you just pack up your bags and move on. 

 

To be honest with you I’m just laughing at how dead serious we all are when it comes to trophies. Then we turn into snowflakes when someone comes in with an opinion that doesn’t agree with someone else’s. 

 

2 hours ago, fastflowdaman said:

Ofc there's a ton of crap that needed to be ironed out - hackers, share play etc. And there would always be ppl handing their controller to others to do certain stuff for them. But that'd be negligible in comparison to the situation at hand.

And the profiles earning trophies in a way only shared profiles would be able to pull off - earning trophies 24 hours a day, earning trophies simultaneously - would be discernible quite easily.

 

Yeah, the few notes went on longer than expected, I guess.

 

Apart from Share Play, none of this was new. 

 

We were handing controllers over to others decades before achievements and trophies even existed. Hackers have only made a big dent these past 10 - 15 years, which isn’t exactly something we just heard about. 

 

I don’t cheat. I take pride at my own accomplishments and I’m proud for what I’ve done. 

 

The top guys treat trophies as a full time job, rather than a niche hobby that we like to partake in. 

 

41 minutes ago, Gommes_ said:

 

Well, when this whole game started these people weren't even in that circle. Some just never saw the purpose of achievements, until publishers saw the chance to make cash with easy platinums and with the new player base. Maybe it's textbook elitism, cause trophy hunting was elitist to begin with. It encouraged you to do more than the average player who just finished a game. This aspect is kinda gone. You don't need to go the extra mile anymore to pile up platinums.

 

This is why we have threads like that and discuss this topic so many times. Simply because our hobby changed drastically within our own bubble. It is absolutely normal for most gamers to point out that mictrotransactions are bad for the industry e.g. Why should it be different when it comes to trophy hunting? Or when franchises head in another direction? When countless season passes come out? Etc?

 

These issues could be ignored but than you never face the possible problems that could rise with certain changes. And to be honest, if you are not vocal about anything you probably never really cared about it to begin with.

 

 

People bitched about DLC nonstop last generation. The fact that Mass Effect 3 DLC was on the disc but you had to pay for it. The fact that GameStop and Best Buy offered exclusive deals if you bought a physical copy of LA Noire at their stores. Both of these were completely ludacrious.

 

Now look at today several years later. Doesn’t matter how much DLC is thrown peoples way because I don’t hear anybody complain about it anymore. Yet we get Season Passes out the ass and Ubisoft is one of the biggest culprits. We’ll just throw in a bunch of bullshit and other fluff if you bought the Deluxe Edition of Assassins Creed Odyssey. 

 

The reason I am vocal is because I like to address concerns, especially the direction the video game industry is headed. 

 

I can’t say I’m an old veteran of trophy hunting, but I was a Xbox 360 gamer prior to coming over to Playstation. The achievements system used to mean a lot more too, but that has changed to where any piece of shit game can make it on there worth the same amount of points.

[Gommes_]

16 minutes ago, Spaz said:

 People bitched about DLC nonstop last generation. The fact that Mass Effect 3 DLC was on the disc but you had to pay for it. The fact that GameStop and Best Buy offered exclusive deals if you bought a physical copy of LA Noire at their stores. Both of these were completely ludacrious.

 

Now look at today several years later. Doesn’t matter how much DLC is thrown peoples way because I don’t hear anybody complain about it anymore. Yet we get Season Passes out the ass and Ubisoft is one of the biggest culprits. We’ll just throw in a bunch of bullshit and other fluff if you bought the Deluxe Edition of Assassins Creed Odyssey.

 

So you get what I mean. These issues are still a problem and I think it is good to speak up.

[mango]

In my opinion only triple AAA games should have a platinum

[BigTigzz]

In theory I liked the idea of deleting trophy lists from profiles, even if there's some trophies earned, I now feel like it'd cause more bad than good. Not only would it cause everyone to have a perfect profile, as has been mentioned on this thread, but I also feel like it could cause some people to lose trophy data. No one's account is ever going to be 100% secure, and the idea that they could have it compromised and lose all their trophies (by a bitter ex or hurt friend for example), is certainly something I wouldn't want to risk!

 

I like the idea of being able to delete those that are under 5% though. For example, me and my gf were looking for an online game to co-op together recently since we're currently long distance. We decided to try out Elder Scrolls Online but quickly decided that wasn't for us and moved on to The Division. Sadly I already earned one trophy for it, and it'd be nice to be able to delete that list and the 100+ trophies that I'll never get from it. 

 

Other than that I'm pretty happy with the way trophies are now.

[Parasol_Star_85]

Hi guys

 

This topic will always be divisive because you get different types of gamers who respond to this post:

 

1. Trophy stackers / exploiters - those who play for trophy quantity & and will play a game in multiple regions to multiply their haul

2. Trophy hunters who play solely for trophy completion %.

3. Casual trophy hunters who play a game until the trophies have been achieved and then consider it complete at this stage but take their time.

4. Game hoppers, who usually have a bunch of Grade E/F games

5. Lazy gamers who are relatively inactive

Note: Some people may fall into multiple categories (Say 1 & 2 / 2 & 3).

 

The people who don't care about trophies will likely be in category 4 & 5, therefore these responders will very likely not understand the point of trophies.

 

On the other hand, people in category 1 are more likely to prefer the current system as it is the easiest way they can achieve their goals.

 

Just for the record, I consider myself to be in category 2 & 3.

 

People in categories 1-3 are likely the 'value' the trophy system in some way and believe this has some kind of prestige attributed to it.

 

My Opinion on the Suggestion from the OP

 

I do agree there needs to be some changes to the current trophy system, however not in the same way that the OP has suggested.

 

The biggest issue I see with rewards based on rarity is it will not be possible to know what the rarity is on the game at the start.

 

So therefore the first achievers of a game would have to wait and see what points their trophies translate into.

 

I do agree however that there needs to be changes to the PSN rarity stats which I come to below.

 

My Suggestions

 

1. Same Game - Multiple Regions

 

Trophies should be locked where another region game is installed on the same PSN account. They do lockout on trophies where you are able to enable cheats (i.e. FF9). This would help ensure that trophy value & integrity is protected to some degree.

 

2. PSN Trophy Data Overhaul

 

Trophy data showing its rarity should only be included in the official data when the gamer achieves x% of the trophies (10% used in the example below however this could be open to debate)

 

A gamer with less than 10% of their trophies completed would still receive the reward of the PSN trophy level points, however the data published would disregard them until they exceeded 10%.

 

The whole point of looking at data, is to give you information which is relevant. I think its fair to say that people that read the PSN rarity data don't feel this is a true reflection of its rarity.

 

3. Ignoring the value of a Platinum in % Completion

 

When calculating the value of completion in games, the platinum trophy itself has some value. Therefore you get a lot of people that jump from 80% straight to 100% because usually the final trophy is a Gold & the platinum follows. I believe that the trophy itself should have its current value, but it should be disregarded in calculating % completion.

 

4. EZPZ games should have a reduced trophy list

 

When trophies are officially approved, there should be an official expected time of completion issues as part of that trophy list. You could determine this to be at say 20 hours. All games with an official completion time of <20 hours would not have a platinum & would have a maximum trophy points of 1000.

 

You don't want people to not buy an EZPZ games as it would reduce money to the smaller game developers, but it would prevent the trophy system being demeaned.

 

 

Whatever changes they do make (if any) it would need to be at the start of a new PS console generation because there it would not be possible to undo the current situation. However they should do something for when the PS5 comes at whatever time in the future.

 

 

 

 

[Salt_AU]

It needs a rethink for sure but to be honest I'd leave it as it is but make some additional changes or awards.

 

Games should introduce a unique avatar as an award, if at all possible the avatar should be animated.  A platinum coloured avatar of the games trophy artwork could be linked to your account and used as an optional avatar.  You could unlock an 'animated' platinum avatar for 100% completion with additional challenging requirements added, such as completion on the hardest difficulty, all DLC complete, completely new challenges outside of the normal trophy set, etc. 

 

Below are the platinum trophies for Sekiro, Bloodborne and Gran Turismo Sport.  I think it would be phenomenal if you could display that artwork as your avatar.  I'm not sure if an animated system could be added but if possible it would be a pretty cool feature and I think gamers would strive to unlock them, I know I certainly would.  

 

 

 

 

 

[starcrunch061]

29 minutes ago, Salt_AU said:

Games should introduce a unique avatar as an award, if at all possible the avatar should be animated.  A platinum coloured avatar of the games trophy artwork could be linked to your account and used as an optional avatar.  You could unlock an 'animated' platinum avatar for 100% completion with additional challenging requirements added, such as completion on the hardest difficulty, all DLC complete, completely new challenges outside of the normal trophy set, etc. 

 

Many hunters have wanted such plat avatars (though the animated part is a first-time read for me). But it just never took hold with developers/publishers. I think Spider-Man gives an avatar, but that's about it.

[temp-910724]

12 hours ago, Spaz said:

 

What I highlighted bold for you, you pretty much put the nail in the coffin.

 

That’s what rankings boil down to. 

Wasn't it already explained to you that money isn't that big of a factor? It definitely helps but it isn't like someone without a small fortune can make it. You seem to be a very close minded person so I'm probably wasting my time but perhaps you could consider it IDK. 

 

OT: For me, the ezpz games are a means to an end, with that end being trophy leaderboards. If the leaderboards were to change to favour rare games then that is what I would play more of. I don't really want to be stacking every Ratalaika game 6x, but I do want a high leaderboard position so that is what I play. 

 

That being said, I think awarding negative points to a common plat is just silly and seems anti-top of the leaderboards for no real reason. If I have 10 hard plats and 50 ratalaika games, I shouldn't be below someone with 5 hard plats. Just award either nothing or minimal points