Rarity/Alternate Leaderboard

[Kal2210]

So I’ve seen this mentioned a few times in various threads, including by some PSNP mods, but I was curious if this is still something actively being discussed. The idea being that there would be an alternate leaderboard, equally as visible as the current leaderboard, that is based on a different algorithm with games weighted by rarity.
 

The exact methodology has been argued a bit, but the basics would include the elimination of stacks from the leaderboard calculations and, in the simplest terms, EZPZs would be significantly devalued and ultrarare plats would receive a boost. 
 

I am by no means someone that will ever obtain top of the leaderboard status with either calculation, and I also enjoy a good mix of EZPZ to very difficult games, but I would really enjoy being able to track my progress and competition with a different leaderboard. EZPZs and stacks likely impact the middle of the leaderboard even more than they impact the top of it. I’d love any thoughts or updates on this front as this trend is obviously here to stay.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Kal2210

[Milktastrophe]

Quick link to the existing rarity leaderboard:

 

https://psnprofiles.com/leaderboard/rarity

[Han_the_Dragon]

The stacks would always be an issue, if you remove them, how would we know the rarity of a game? 

 

Due to the site being heavily Western, all Asia/Japan games will always have higher rarity (only people going for trophies playes them around here), and then you also have funny things like Redout, that's 6% in the US stack and 12% in the EU stack ? 

 

There would also be the issue of defining what a stack is, because of straight ports, remasters and enhanced editions. 

 

I do know that all that was debated before, just dropping it here again. 

 

The best option would be a rarity leaderboard, but Sly didn't liked the way it was being calculated or something and it was left in the back-burner, since there's a lot more going on backstage. 

[Kal2210]

1 hour ago, Milktastrophe said:

Quick link to the existing rarity leaderboard:

 

https://psnprofiles.com/leaderboard/rarity

I’m aware this exists, but as I said in my post, it would be nice if this was:

 

1.) equally visible-it’s actually hard to even find and I’ve never even figured out how to access it on mobile. Essentially, it would be nice when you click leaderboard for it to give you the option to sort by “general” or “weighted”

2.) its algorithm took away stacks

3.) it would be really nice to be able to see platinum counts after removing stacks on the leaderboard with more detailed breakdowns of ultrarare, mid tier, and common plats.

 

I’m aware that it’s not an easy feat, but this post was to gauge interest and see if this was being discussed. 
 

edit: also, thanks for the easy to access link as you mentioned in your next comment

Edited February 6, 2020 by Kal2210

[Beyondthegrave07]

I've discussed it before in other threads. The problem with the current rarity board is that there's not much difference at the top so it's not really bringing anything new to look at.

 

My proposal has and will always be to make common trophies worth zero. This essentially takes care of stacked games like VNs, some indies, and EZPZs. If someone cared enough to play Demon souls 3 times, let them get all the points. They earned it. 

 

I'd be pretty traditional about how much each is worth too...

 

UC - 15 pts

R - 30 pts

VR - 90 pts

UR - 180 pts

 

I'd be interested to see how this format would work or if the categories would need more tweaking to make the rarity board more interesting. I think this would be pretty fair and a little less arbitrary though than anything else.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Beyondthegrave07
Grammar

[B1rvine]

On 2/6/2020 at 4:50 PM, Beyondthegrave07 said:

My proposal has and will always be to make common trophies worth zero.

 

Commons should be worth one, not zero. Why? Imagine a hypothetical situation where two profiles in question only have common trophies.

 

Edit : Actually a better idea is to only count ultra rares.

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by B1rvine

[Kal2210]

28 minutes ago, Beyondthegrave07 said:

I've discussed it before in other threads. The problem with the current rarity board is that there's not much difference at the top so it's not really bringing anything new to look at.

 

My proposal has and will always be to make common trophies worth zero. This essentially takes care of stacked games like VNs, some indies, and EZPZs. If someone cared enough to play Demon souls 3 times, let them get all the points. They earned it. 

 

I'd be pretty traditional about how much each is worth too...

 

UC - 15 pts

R - 30 pts

VR - 90 pts

UR - 180 pts

 

I'd be interested to see how this format would work or if the categories would need more tweaking to make the rarity board more interesting. I think this would be pretty fair and a little less arbitrary though than anything else.

I think this is a really good idea. While I’d love for games I personally see as “legitimate” (though admittedly short and easy) like Spyro to count for something, there will never be a perfect answer and I think what you laid out is fair and would provide an interesting/different leaderboard. Love the idea actually.

[Milktastrophe]

1 hour ago, Kal2210 said:

I’m aware this exists, but as I said in my post, it would be nice if this was:

 

1.) equally visible-it’s actually hard to even find and I’ve never even figured out how to access it on mobile. Essentially, it would be nice when you click leaderboard for it to give you the option to sort by “general” or “weighted”

 

That's why I provided the link, because it's not easy to find and not everyone who views this thread might even know it exists.

[Bezenko]

28 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

 

Commons should be worth one, not zero. Why? Imagine a hypothetical situation where two profiles in question only have common trophies.

 

If you are not able to earn a single uncommon or more rare trophy you should not be on a rarity leaderboard. Just like if you are not able to earn a single trophy you should have no place on the main leaderboard. 20,000 common trophies should never beat 1 rare or even 500 ultra rare depending on the formula. I even think uncommon trophies should be weighted 0 points.

 

Also whatever the formula is, a 0.1% trophy has to be worth alot more than a 4.99% even though they are both UR if it should make any sense in my opinion.

[sepheroithisgod]

I personally think leaderboards just need to be expanded. We should have a general leaderboard, rarity, categorical (i.e RPG, FPS, Fighting, etc.), stackless, and whatever else people think is worth it. There's no harm in having more leaderboards.

 

A thing I would really like to be explored is country ranks. I really don't understand why an EU or JP game should add value to a US country rank. Make sense for world rankings, but not country imo.

[Kal2210]

15 minutes ago, Bezenko said:

 

If you are not able to earn a single uncommon or more rare trophy you should not be on a rarity leaderboard. Just like if you are not able to earn a single trophy you should have no place on the main leaderboard. 20,000 common trophies should never beat 1 rare or even 500 ultra rare depending on the formula. I even think uncommon trophies should be weighted 0 points.

 

Also whatever the formula is, a 0.1% trophy has to be worth alot more than a 4.99% even though they are both UR if it should make any sense in my opinion.

Don’t get me wrong, this sounds good to me, but Beyond’s idea is great for its simplicity. I suppose adding either a <1% (maybe too high) vs <.5% (probably the right answer) could make some sense to give classics like SMB, Wolfenstein2, ESO and hardcore indies like cloudberry kingdom some extra reward, but there can’t be too many “extras” like this. Everyone will want slightly different things, but the idea Beyond proposed is fair, relatively simple, and would likely make a good LB.

[B1rvine]

31 minutes ago, Bezenko said:

snip

 

Well, I didn't mention what anything else should be. 

 

My point is someone with 1000 commons should be rated higher than someone 100 commons. Common trophies still have a rarity, and thus should be counted. It's not a good idea to exclude anyone that participates.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by B1rvine

[Beyondthegrave07]

1 hour ago, B1rvine said:

 

Commons should be worth one, not zero. Why? Imagine a hypothetical situation where two profiles in question only have common trophies.

I'm not totally against that, but you may still run into the problem where sheer number of trophies beats out the rarity which is the problem with the current rarity leaderboard. That's why I think zero is the only option.

 

If we made them worth 1 on my scale, I think quantity would win out, and a new scale would be needed. You can earn 100 C trophies in an hour, but VR and URs can take hours and hours of grinding. Therefore, we're right back where we started. Quantity over quality.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Beyondthegrave07

[Han_the_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Beyondthegrave07 said:

I've discussed it before in other threads. The problem with the current rarity board is that there's not much difference at the top so it's not really bringing anything new to look at.

 

My proposal has and will always be to make common trophies worth zero. This essentially takes care of stacked games like VNs, some indies, and EZPZs. If someone cared enough to play Demon souls 3 times, let them get all the points. They earned it. 

 

I'd be pretty traditional about how much each is worth too...

 

UC - 15 pts

R - 30 pts

VR - 90 pts

UR - 180 pts

 

I'd be interested to see how this format would work or if the categories would need more tweaking to make the rarity board more interesting. I think this would be pretty fair and a little less arbitrary though than anything else.

Going by this, how would this be handled:

 

https://psnprofiles.com/trophy/6583-redout/1-redout-master

 

https://psnprofiles.com/trophies/6578-redout

 

Redout plat in the US stack is 4.22% and on the EU stack is 12.36%, both have about the same amount of players too, now explain to me why the US stack isso much more valuable than the EU one... 

 

There are several examples like this (although this is the more hilarious one that I know, because it's an absurd difference). 

[Kal2210]

2 minutes ago, Han_the_Dragon said:

Going by this, how would this be handled:

 

https://psnprofiles.com/trophy/6583-redout/1-redout-master

 

https://psnprofiles.com/trophies/6578-redout

 

Redout plat in the US stack is 4.22% and on the EU stack is 12.36%, both have about the same amount of players too, now explain to me why the US stack isso much more valuable than the EU one... 

 

There are several examples like this (although this is the more hilarious one that I know, because it's an absurd difference). 

Excuse my ignorance with the challenges of managing and compiling large data sets, but is it possible to combine stacks to a single rarity? Irrespective of a new rarity leaderboard, having a single rarity percentage for a single game seems like the ideal situation since they’re identical games. Given that this isn’t already standard, I’m assuming there is a reason that isn’t the case, but I am curious if that is something that is possible given all versions have total number of players, percentages, and links to all other versions available on the same page.

[B1rvine]

15 minutes ago, Beyondthegrave07 said:

I'm not totally against that, but you may still run into the problem where sheer number of trophies beats out the rarity which is the problem with the current rarity leaderboard.

 

If we made them worth 1 on my scale, I think quantity would win out, and a new scale would be needed. You can earn 100 C trophies in an hour, but VR and URs can take hours and hours of grinding. Therefore, we're right back where we started. Quantity over quality.

 

I don't think so actually.   Even with my highest percentage UR, Arkham City, it would take a lot of EZPZ's to put a dent to it.  Arkham City is 2615 points (if I added correctly). It'd take 131 stacks of Foxyland 2 to get more points.

 

Quality doesn't have anything to do with rarity. That should probably be related to a nostack leaderboard.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by B1rvine

[Beyondthegrave07]

46 minutes ago, Han_the_Dragon said:

Going by this, how would this be handled:

 

https://psnprofiles.com/trophy/6583-redout/1-redout-master

 

https://psnprofiles.com/trophies/6578-redout

 

Redout plat in the US stack is 4.22% and on the EU stack is 12.36%, both have about the same amount of players too, now explain to me why the US stack isso much more valuable than the EU one... 

 

There are several examples like this (although this is the more hilarious one that I know, because it's an absurd difference). 

Yeah, ideally, it'd be great if we could combine it, but that sort of thing would have to be done manually. Otherwise, we'd just have to put up with the discrepancy.

 

38 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

 

I don't think so actually.   Even with my highest percentage UR, Arkham City, it would take a lot of EZPZ's to put a dent to it.  Arkham City is 2615 points (if I added correctly). It'd take 131 stacks of Foxyland 2 to get more points.

 

Quality doesn't have anything to do with rarity. That should probably be related to a nostack leaderboard.

 

By quality I'm referring to the "rareness" of the trophy, not the quality of the game itself.

 

Like I said, I'm not totally against your idea. It's hard to say one way is better than another without actually seeing it in practice. I think you'd run into the issue of numbers beating out rarity in the end, but I could be totally wrong. We'd really need to see it side by side before coming to a conclusion on anything. And full disclosure, my idea may be utter crap too.

 

I also find it a little funny that we would allow common trophies (by definition the exact opposite of rare) on a rarity leaderboard. But hey, maybe that's just me! Haha.

[ProfBambam55]

I pondered this a bit a few years ago and sadly have yet to come up with a value better than the average rarity or its opposite % of 100 that already exists on our profile stats page that avoids arbitrary e-peen inflation...ex. 1% = large, 1.01% = small; 5% = large, 5.01% = small, etc...what is it about 1.01% or 5.01% that makes them so much less valuable than 1% or 5% respectively?...mathematically it just doesn't add up...

 

let's have a bit of fun and exaggerate to the extreme to highlight the issues:

 

a person with 1 000 000 common trophies will most likely always have a higher ranking than someone with 1000 1% ones even though the latter should be higher based on "the more rare is better" mentality...so 1‰ should be 1000+ times more valuable than common...but what if the first player has 10 000 000 commons?...should 1% then be revalued at 10 000 times the value?...

 

using the average rarity stat also has its flaws...a person with one ultra rare plat valued at sub 1% will always be higher than a person with a million 2% plats...and so the conundrum persists...

 

if previous discussions have taught me anything, it is that a number of people will see the flaw in this kind of evaluation, others will insist that lower imaginary boundaries should be increased to as high a number per category as possible that is still easily legible while others are worth as little as possible, and yet another group will either not care or not know how to display the stat properly to represent their ideal of rarity...

 

it seems about the right time to recycle this discussion in hopes of someone coming up with a unique idea...i wish I had more constructive commentary to add here but don't so instead will link the old thread in hopes that this convo will lead to more productive dialogue than past one(s)...

 

side note: I have no idea why the request to remove stacks...if I play the last of us ps3 and ps4 or demon's souls eu and na, I don't see why both shouldn't be rewarded if I've played them...if it's because they tend to be  "easier", they will inevitably be less rare, thereby making badass ultra rare hunters who don't stack games appear even more badass...i'm curious: what is the reasoning behind the exclusion?...

Edited February 7, 2020 by ProfBambam55

[zajac9999]

Honestly I would just prefer something rather than nothing. This sort of thread gets revived occasionally, people suggest some ideas with nothing concrete, Sly ignores it and nothing happens lol. 

[Kal2210]

18 minutes ago, ProfBambam55 said:

I pondered this a bit a few years ago and sadly have yet to come up with a value better than the average rarity or its opposite % of 100 that already exists on our profile stats page that avoids arbitrary e-peen inflation...ex. 1% = large, 1.01% = small; 5% = large, 5.01% = small, etc...what is it about 1.01% or 5.01% that makes them so much less valuable than 1% or 5% respectively?...mathematically it just doesn't add up...

 

if previous discussions have taught me anything, it is that a number of people will see the flaw in this kind of evaluation, others will insist that lower imaginary boundaries should be increased to as high a number per category as possible that is still easily legible while others are worth as little as possible, and yet another group will either not care or not know how to display the stat properly to represent their idea of rarity...

 

it seems about the right time to recycle this discussion in hopes of someone coming up with a unique idea...i wish I had more constructive commentary to add here but don't so instead will link the old thread in hopes that this convo will lead to more productive dialogue than past one(s)...

 

side note: I have no idea why the request to remove stacks...if I play the last of us ps3 and ps4 or demon's souls eu and na, I don't see why both shouldn't be rewarded if I've played them...if it's because they tend to be  "easier", they will inevitably be less rare, thereby making badass ultra rare hunters who don't stack games appear even more badass...what is the reasoning behind the exclusion?...

The emphasis on removing stacks was solely based on VN and rata-like stacks. I have no goal of removing difficult stacks like the ones you included. I think Beyond’s idea of completely eliminating common trophies handles this well. I’m sure there are other ideas as well but I definitely didn’t mean that challenging stacks should be removed. 
 

Having said this, some BS stacks could boost score significantly. For instance, once you do Friday the 13th once, you can get its stacks with minimal difficulty and this would count as many ultra rare trophies. These types of things are mostly unavoidable. You’re either taking away legitimate stacks from people or you’re allowing BS rare stacks so no perfect solution.

[Han_the_Dragon]

13 hours ago, Beyondthegrave07 said:

Yeah, ideally, it'd be great if we could combine it, but that sort of thing would have to be done manually. Otherwise, we'd just have to put up with the discrepancy.

Ok, I thought as much. 

 

The idea of merged rarities really sounds good to me (since Sony doesn't care enough to ask publishers to stop with the multiple lists bs). 

[Arcesius]

14 hours ago, Han_the_Dragon said:

Going by this, how would this be handled:

 

https://psnprofiles.com/trophy/6583-redout/1-redout-master

https://psnprofiles.com/trophies/6578-redout

 

Redout plat in the US stack is 4.22% and on the EU stack is 12.36%, both have about the same amount of players too, now explain to me why the US stack isso much more valuable than the EU one... 

 

There are several examples like this (although this is the more hilarious one that I know, because it's an absurd difference). 

 

Just compute the "actual" rarity of both stacs combined. In this specific case there are 3111 total playes and 248 platinum achievers, so 7.9% platinum rarity. 

 

Honestly this site would be so much better if stacks were merged, both in the main page (i.e. the trophy lists) and the game-forums. 

 

 

13 hours ago, Beyondthegrave07 said:

Yeah, ideally, it'd be great if we could combine it, but that sort of thing would have to be done manually. Otherwise, we'd just have to put up with the discrepancy.

 

I dunno how in which format etc. you get the trophy lists on here, but sounds to me like an easy to automate process. 

[Bliss]

18 hours ago, Milktastrophe said:

Quick link to the existing rarity leaderboard:

 

https://psnprofiles.com/leaderboard/rarity

Hmm. A lot of the profiles seem to be private. ?

[starcrunch061]

16 hours ago, Bezenko said:

 

If you are not able to earn a single uncommon or more rare trophy you should not be on a rarity leaderboard. Just like if you are not able to earn a single trophy you should have no place on the main leaderboard. 20,000 common trophies should never beat 1 rare or even 500 ultra rare depending on the formula. I even think uncommon trophies should be weighted 0 points.

 

I agree with this. Though I have generally poo-poo-ed the idea of another leaderboard, if such a rarity leaderboard exists, there's no reason that everyone should be on it.

 

16 hours ago, Bezenko said:

Also whatever the formula is, a 0.1% trophy has to be worth alot more than a 4.99% even though they are both UR if it should make any sense in my opinion.

 

This is less clear to me. More to the point, yes, a trophy that is worth 0.1% is probably more difficult than one which is 4.99%. But the cut-offs in between seem arbitrary, and often can be skewed. For example, Rainbow Moon's plat is currently UR with a rarity of 4.81%. Maldita Castilla EX is also UR, with a rarity of 4.87%.

 

But Maldita Castilla is significantly harder than Rainbow Moon. It's not even close. The only reason Rainbow Moon sniffs at UR rarity is because it was a PS+ game. 

 

And this is generally where the conversation starts to break down for me.

[Bliss]

I know this topic is primarily about rarity — but, I think optional alternative leaderboards for states, provinces and other countries within a country (think the UK) would be an awesome idea as well. Sort of similar to how TrueAchievements do it where if you want to appear on a regional leaderboard, you select your regional flag on your profile.

 

Yes, it’s open to “abuse” since you could dominate leaderboard while you aren’t really from there or living there, but that happens on the normal leaderboards anyway. It might also be a major PITA to implement but the general leaderboards are getting a little stale. Hakoom with the occasional appearance from Roughdawg when he returns from time to time.

 

Rarity leaderboards, however, should definitely be a higher priority IMO since it appears folks have been requesting it for a while now.