Rarity/Alternate Leaderboard

[Kal2210]

2 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

 

Right, but removing commons (EZPZ) only doesn't solve the problem.  A leaderboard only counting UR's, or with everything else near zero does.

 

Well it solves the problem of EZPZs and worthless stacks which I think is what a lot of people would prefer removed. It also gives a weighted bonus for rarer trophies. To me, there’s no perfect leaderboard, but this would serve its purpose well.
 

And, if after removing ALL those games, the leaderboard is relatively unchanged (which it won’t be), then at least people won’t have an excuse anymore. You can check the leaderboard with all trash games removed and your proudest trophies emphasized so no one can complain about how useless the leaderboard is because of Ratalaika 6 stacks. I think it would be a great additional leaderboard.

[Rally-Vincent---]

If you are all "that ain't right, that don't count", just give everybody their own damn leaderboard. There, you are #1, congratulations.

[B1rvine]

18 minutes ago, Kal2210 said:

And, if after removing ALL those games, the leaderboard is relatively unchanged (which it won’t be).

 

I've already done the calculations. Uncommon's would become the new common.

 

If you ONLY factor uncommons for the following people, their scores would be:

 

Top 10:

Hakoom:     326160

ikemenzi:     261735

Unknown:    240315

CAPTAIN-T: 230640

tusman:       199215

stream_f:     193290

Diddi89:       187635

ferryjan:        181105

MarCCeon:   160275

Day4NightX:  109770  (this guy has significantly less uncommons too)

 

Your score counting everything :

111435

 

A few people in the top would shift around, and some people may make significant jumps to the top 2500 or so, but there's no way for people to climb beyond that.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by B1rvine

[Bezenko]

52 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

 

Right, but removing commons (EZPZ) only doesn't solve the problem.  A leaderboard only counting UR's, or with everything else near zero does.

 

 

Actually I think this a good idea. Anyone who is somewhat interested in a rarity leaderboard should have at least one UR trophy anyway. This would remove  the issue of large quantities of uncommon (hell, even rare and very rare) outweighing smaller profiles with a relative good amount of URs. If any of the top profiles is still on top, good job to them, it’s well deserved.

 

Would be nice to hear some new input from Sly on this. Are there any chances for this at all of are we wasting out time discussing it (again...)

52 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

 

Right, but removing commons (EZPZ) only doesn't solve the problem.  A leaderboard only counting UR's, or with everything else near zero does.

 

 

Actually I think this a good idea. Anyone who is somewhat interested in a rarity leaderboard should have at least one UR trophy anyway. This would remove  the issue of large quantities of uncommon (hell, even rare and very rare) outweighing smaller profiles with a relative good amount of URs. If any of the top profiles is still on top, good job to them, it’s well deserved.

 

Would be nice to hear some new input from Sly on this. Are there any chances for this at all of are we wasting out time discussing it (again...)

[Sword]

Maybe I don't understand how it works currently, but if I were to code a ranking board for rarity profiles I'd do it in descending order of rarity on a weighted system.

 

I.E: First, take all the players who have at least one ultra rare trophy and generate a weighted score for all their ultra rare trophies (where ultra rare trophies with less % completed are weighted with a higher score than ultra rare trophies with a higher completion). Then place all those players in a ranking. Tie breakers are determined by the next rarity in line: very rare trophies. Example: Player 1 has a UR score of 100,000 and player 2 has a UR score of 100,000. Now we look at player 1's and player 2's very rare trophies and determine a weighted score for both players very rare trophies. Whoever is higher gets placed above the other, irregardless of how many rares, uncommons, or commons that each player has. This repeats all the way down to common trophies. In this manner, whoever is #1 has the highest UR score and in the event of a tie breaker on UR score with #2 on the leaderboard, look at VR. In the event of a tie breaker again, whoever is #1 has the best UR, VR and R score. etc. etc. That way, the only way common trophys would ever be taken into account is in the event that two players have the EXACT same VR, UR, R and uncommon scores. 

 

After ranking all the players who have at least 1 UR trophy, we begin ranking all the players who have no UR trophies and at least 1 VR trophy, who are not already ranked in the UR division. Follow the same weighted ranking and then place them, in score order, below the UR players on the leaderboards.

 

In this manner, a person who has even 1 UR trophy will automatically be placed higher than a person who has 2 million common trophies or even 1000 VR's. This is essentially creating brackets and sub dividing within each bracket based on a weighted score for each level of rarity of trophies. You can earn a million common trophies and be #1 in the "rankings" for common trophies, but until you earn even a single UR trophy you'd never appear in the ranking for all UR players (who are ranked first). Even then, once you earned that 1 UR trophy, you'd be placed on the bottom of the "rankings" for the UR players because your UR score simply would not compete with players who've earned many more UR's than you.

 

So, for a player, as long as their UR score is higher than someone with 1 million commons and a lower UR score, the player would forever be ranked higher, irregardless of the fact they may have 1000x less commons over the course of their gaming career. Stack away all you want with ezpz uncommon stacking games, it'll never raise your ranking over someone until you gain more UR score than them.

 

This is obviously all exaggerated of course, but still. 

 

I also don't see the point in disregarding people for stacking games, even UR games, as it stands today. They legitimately put in the time and played those games and got the trophies and the UR or whatever. I wouldn't want to discard their progress just cause they stacked a game. I mean I get how it can be frustrating but still. Either that or you just compound all the stats for a single game into one and award based on that, but then you'd have to mess around with peoples trophies which would not be an accurate representation of their total counts at all because you'd be removing earned trophies these players got legitimately just to make it 1 game.

 

Of course, remove all hackers and stuff. That's a given. ?

 

That's how I'd do the rankings at least. In my opinion people should be rewarded for the time put into earning rarer trophies, even if it's only a single UR trophy, you should be recognized higher than someone who doesn't even have a single UR trophy. 

 

[cris3f]

4 hours ago, B1rvine said:

 

Well, then you run into another problem. Even Hakoom's uncommon trophies total more than everything most people would have have. No matter what trophies you start giving points at, sheer numbers are going to give anyone a lead. That's not necessarily a bad thing.  

 

I still say common's should probably count. We have a bunch of people saying that sub 1% should be a big score boost. I don't think most people have a problem saying that one hundred 1% platinum games should score more than a single 0.5% game. However, the reality is the same can be applied to any other percentage, meaning numbers should also be a factor. There's also no way to score two different people with an equal amount of URs, VRs, Rs, UC's but one person having more commons. 

 

An effective way to combat sheer numbers is : only UR's should count in the rarity leaderboard.

 

Edit: Actually I'm thinking more and more that only UR's should count at all (or others near zero).

 

 

 

Unfortunately even URs are sometimes misleading. My topmost one is a ridiculous trophy that can be boosted in 30 mins or less alone with 2 consoles or with another person online. So even those have their own value.

 

But this is a certainly very good idea, it will give a much better leaderboard than the one that exists, which is ridiculous, as the normal one is just a trophy hoarders, not a good gamers one,although that distinction is easy to spot.

 

 

[Kal2210]

4 hours ago, B1rvine said:

 

I've already done the calculations. Uncommon's would become the new common.

 

If you ONLY factor uncommons for the following people, their scores would be:

 

Top 10:

Hakoom:     326160

ikemenzi:     261735

Unknown:    240315

CAPTAIN-T: 230640

tusman:       199215

stream_f:     193290

Diddi89:       187635

ferryjan:        181105

MarCCeon:   160275

Day4NightX:  109770  (this guy has significantly less uncommons too)

 

Your score counting everything :

111435

 

A few people in the top would shift around, and some people may make significant jumps to the top 2500 or so, but there's no way for people to climb beyond that.

 

 

 

 

I don’t understand this argument at all. I feel like this assumes that people only care about the absolute top of the leaderboard? The leaderboard is a nice way to track your progress for the middle of the pack as well, which this would likely impact quite a bit. Not sure why the focus on the top 10 who play most games in existence.

[RustyZero]

Make it simple: Points = 1/Rarity

 

that would give for exemple:

• Rarity = 50% -> 1/50% = 1/0.5 = 2 points
• Rarity = 10% -> 10 points
• Rarity = 2% -> 50 points
• Rarity = 0.5% -> 200 points

[B1rvine]

15 hours ago, Kal2210 said:

I don’t understand this argument at all. I feel like this assumes that people only care about the absolute top of the leaderboard?

 

It's not only the top of the leaderboard. Generally speaking, everyone in the top 1000 will stay in the top 1000 due to sheer numbers. Some of them may shift spots wildly (ie someone ranked 900 will jump up to 200) but general ranks will stay the same. This is true to an extent I'd say through the top 2500. 

 

The purpose of the rarity leaderboard is to give anyone a viable and tangible path to the top by playing rarer. Right now, a regular person such as yourself has no real way to get beyond that 2500 rank threshold. 

 

The only reason I said initially said common trophies should count is more for "tiebreakers" and that everyone can be included somehow.

 

6 hours ago, RustyZero said:

Make it simple: Points = 1/Rarity

 

This also doesn't solve the problem of sheer quantity winning out. It also gives those 0.01%'s too many points at 10000 where someone could play 5 games and never be able to reached for the vast majority. This is essentially what's used now and failed. 

 

I don't favor giving out super UR's (sub 0.10 %) incredibly large amounts of points because those numbers are:

• tracked inaccurately see: Badland has 12 platinum earners, and should be a 0.01%, but is tracked at 0.03% due to 9 of them cheating other games.
• highly unstable, one or two wins will drastically change those numbers
• and they usually solely affected by the player count and/or server closures etc.

 

[Arcesius]

26 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

This also doesn't solve the problem of sheer quantity winning out. It also gives those 0.01%'s too many points at 10000 where someone could play 5 games and never be able to reached for the vast majority. This is essentially what's used now and failed. 

 

And what about weighting the individual categories to relativize the total number of trophies? 

 

Say 90 points for UR, 60 points for VR, 30 points for Rare, 0 points for the everything else (just as an example). 

 

• Person 1: 1 UR, 10 VR, 1000 Rare, 10000 Other --> 11011 Trophies total. 
  • 90*1*(1/101011) + 60*10*(10/101011) + 30*1000*(1000/101011) = 2725 points
     
• Person 2: 1000 UR, 1000 VR, 100 Rare, 1000 Other --> 3100 Trophies total. 
  • 90*1000*(1000/3100) + 60*1000*(1000/3100) + 30*100*(100/3100) = 48484 points

 

This would still somehow take into consideration the overall number of trophies, but put a heavier weight on rare trophies. One could also only divide by the total number of trophies with non-zero value instead of overall number of trophies. 

 

You could combine this with the above idea of having each individual trophy be worth its inversed rarity, instead of having fixed values for each rarity category. 

 

I didn't really think too much about this, was just a spontaneous idea. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by Arcesius

[Dr_Mayus]

After reading this and the other threads I think the biggest problem is no one can agree on what they want so no matter what Sly does there will be people upset.

 

Honestly, I know a small percentage of the site wants this but is this really something we need to put the site's resources and time into? As @B1rvine has pointed out the people on top will remain on top due to sheer number of trophies so what are you getting out of it? To see that you are number 134,456 in the world for "rare" points?

 

If rarity is such a concern for some people join some of the groups on the site that exist already (for example). I would rather see the time and effort into fixing smaller things like the milestones that clutter our front pages, the notifications that don't tell you what statuses are being responded to, the fact that the Guides have no alpha listing etc.

 

This just reminds me of the trophy competitions we do here. Back on the old site we used to do them all the time and everyone (minus one or two people) had a great time just playing stupid games for trophies. Now there is so much math involved it takes all the fun out of the competition because we had to appease one or two people who like their "rare" trophies.

 

Being Ultra Rare doesn't really mean anything considering my EYEPet and Start the Party! platinums are Ultra Rare. Should I be rewarded higher on the leaderboard because I platinumed EYEPet?

 

Sorry for being a party pooper, I just don't think this is something that even 1% of the site would ever use...so I guess in the end the Leaderboard would have an Ultra Rare user rate.

[Kal2210]

50 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

 

It's not only the top of the leaderboard. Generally speaking, everyone in the top 1000 will stay in the top 1000 due to sheer numbers. Some of them may shift spots wildly (ie someone ranked 900 will jump up to 200) but general ranks will stay the same. This is true to an extent I'd say through the top 2500. 

 

The purpose of the rarity leaderboard is to give anyone a viable and tangible path to the top by playing rarer. Right now, a regular person such as yourself has no real way to get beyond that 2500 rank threshold. 

 

The only reason I said initially said common trophies should count is more for "tiebreakers" and that everyone can be included somehow.

 

 

This also doesn't solve the problem of sheer quantity winning out. It also gives those 0.01%'s too many points at 10000 where someone could play 5 games and never be able to reached for the vast majority. This is essentially what's used now and failed. 

 

I don't favor giving out super UR's (sub 0.10 %) incredibly large amounts of points because those numbers are:

• tracked inaccurately see: Badland has 12 platinum earners, and should be a 0.01%, but is tracked at 0.03% due to 9 of them cheating other games.
• highly unstable, one or two wins will drastically change those numbers
• and they usually solely affected by the player count and/or server closures etc.

 

I guess I don’t expect to necessarily break into the top 1000. I still think that a new leaderboard like this will help combat the EZPZ/stack issue for a lot of players at least to some extent. And you can still track yourself on a leaderboard that you trust more. The difference between being 30k on a leaderboard and like 10k is definitely possible so to me it’s worthwhile.

3 minutes ago, Dr_Mayus said:

After reading this and the other threads I think the biggest problem is no one can agree on what they want so no matter what Sly does there will be people upset.

 

Honestly, I know a small percentage of the site wants this but is this really something we need to put the site's resources and time into? As @B1rvine has pointed out the people on top will remain on top due to sheer number of trophies so what are you getting out of it? To see that you are number 134,456 in the world for "rare" points?

 

If rarity is such a concern for some people join some of the groups on the site that exist already (for example). I would rather see the time and effort into fixing smaller things like the milestones that clutter our front pages, the notifications that don't tell you what statuses are being responded to, the fact that the Guides have no alpha listing etc.

 

This just reminds me of the trophy competitions we do here. Back on the old site we used to do them all the time and everyone (minus one or two people) had a great time just playing stupid games for trophies. Now there is so much math involved it takes all the fun out of the competition because we had to appease one or two people who like their "rare" trophies.

 

Being Ultra Rare doesn't really mean anything considering my EYEPet and Start the Party! platinums are Ultra Rare. Should I be rewarded higher on the leaderboard because I platinumed EYEPet?

 

Sorry for being a party pooper, I just don't think this is something that even 1% of the site would ever use...so I guess in the end the Leaderboard would have an Ultra Rare user rate.

I strongly disagree that <1% of the site would be interested in this. You’ve seen the monthly “rata-EZPZ” complaint threads that go on for 30 pages say that “trophies aren’t worth anything anymore”. This would be a strategy to have those voices be heard while still mostly maintaining status quo.

[Dr_Mayus]

13 minutes ago, Kal2210 said:

I guess I don’t expect to necessarily break into the top 1000. I still think that a new leaderboard like this will help combat the EZPZ/stack issue for a lot of players at least to some extent. And you can still track yourself on a leaderboard that you trust more. The difference between being 30k on a leaderboard and like 10k is definitely possible so to me it’s worthwhile.

I strongly disagree that <1% of the site would be interested in this. You’ve seen the monthly “rata-EZPZ” complaint threads that go on for 30 pages say that “trophies aren’t worth anything anymore”. This would be a strategy to have those voices be heard while still mostly maintaining status quo.

They may go on for 30 pages but it is usually the same 9 or 10 people with 4 of them saying "it doesn't matter" and the other 6 getting mad.

 

If you look at this thread how many different people have actually spoken up in favour of this idea? I mean the original post only has 2 likes and the highest "liked" post has 9.

 

I know Likes aren't any real deciding factor...but I think that speaks to the actual site interest in this. A brand new leaderboard that that little of people care about...and can't even agree on what it should look like should not be this sites prime objective.

 

Like I said if you want to compare stats so badly created a group for Ultra Rare hunters (or join one of the ones already in progress) and compare your stats with each other and encourage each other to plat rarer games. Or you can just join SeaTK

 

That is just my opinion.

[B1rvine]

I'd disagree its a small minority. I'd say its about 40 - 50% of the site, going on the polls from The Ribbon System votes. @Dr_Mayus

 

We should probably have multiple leaderboards.  Rarity. 100%. Rarity+100%. To name a few. This is the only site without more than one kind of leaderboard and PSNP should stay competitive when possible.

[Dr_Mayus]

16 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

I'd disagree its a small minority. I'd say its about 40 - 50% of the site, going on the polls from The Ribbon System votes. @Dr_Mayus

 

We should probably have multiple leaderboards.  Rarity. 100%. Rarity+100%. To name a few. This is the only site without more than one kind of leaderboard and PSNP should stay competitive when possible.

Well maybe I am wrong, I just don't see enough people caring about it...or maybe I just don't see enough people on the forums caring about it.

 

Also I really hope we don't do the Ribbon thing. Our pages are messy enough without another thing added to it. If we do add it I hope we have the option to turn it off.

[Mori]

3 hours ago, Dr_Mayus said:

Well maybe I am wrong, I just don't see enough people caring about it...or maybe I just don't see enough people on the forums caring about it.

 

Also I really hope we don't do the Ribbon thing. Our pages are messy enough without another thing added to it. If we do add it I hope we have the option to turn it off.

 

Maybe because this topic got talked about so many times by now, people stop caring at some point. I mean, what is/are the result(s) of these threads til now?

I think the ribbon thread was the farthest we got, but it seems like that has been on hold for quite a while now.

 

And since there is no feedback whatsoever from the person/people who would decide it, why even bother? And just to be clear, feedback for the majority, not just for the few members that are sitting next to the "source", who eventually drop the news in one of their posts, which are unnoticed by the masses.