Rarity/Alternate Leaderboard

[starcrunch061]

2 minutes ago, Bliss said:

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.

 

Don't we already have this one, though? I mean, I see a country rank next to my name when I check my profile.

[Bliss]

6 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Don't we already have this one, though? I mean, I see a country rank next to my name when I check my profile.

I stated “other countries within a country (think the UK)”

 

Sorry, my wording might have been a bit strange. The UK is made up of four countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) so it makes sense to have optional regional leaderboards for them, if the idea were to ever be implemented, that is.

 

Hong Kong, an autonomous region of China, has its own leaderboards.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Bliss
Added stuff

[starcrunch061]

1 hour ago, Bliss said:

I stated “other countries within a country (think the UK)”

 

Sorry, my wording might have been a bit strange. The UK is made up of four countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) so it makes sense to have optional regional leaderboards for them, if the idea were to ever be implemented, that is.

 

Hong Kong, an autonomous region of China, has its own leaderboards.

 

Ah, gotcha. I put the em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-LA-ble.

Edited February 7, 2020 by starcrunch061

[Bumperklever]

3 hours ago, Bliss said:

I stated “other countries within a country (think the UK)”

 

Sorry, my wording might have been a bit strange. The UK is made up of four countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) so it makes sense to have optional regional leaderboards for them, if the idea were to ever be implemented, that is.

 

Hong Kong, an autonomous region of China, has its own leaderboards.

 

Eh, An account in scotland and wales is an UK account right? and so the account will be UK for mentioned. If so, you are depending on human input and you don't want your statistical leaderboard be depended on human input.

 

There is a difference between HK accounts then a chinese accounts.

 

[Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Bumperklever said:

 

Eh, An account in scotland and wales is an UK account right? and so the account will be UK for mentioned. If so, you are depending on human input and you don't want your statistical leaderboard be depended on human input.

 

There is a difference between HK accounts then a chinese accounts.

 

This entire site depends on human input to an extent, in that you have to enter your ID for it to even track you in the first place. I stated that “abuse” (which I assume you mean by ‘human input’) of the regional leaderboards is possible but that it occurs in the general leaderboards as well regardless, i.e Hakoom is #1 in the world and the US however he isn’t American from what I can gather.
 

Yes, there is a difference on Sony’s end between Hong Kong and Chinese accounts, but they are the same country whether you agree with it or not. Scotland and Wales are entirely separate countries in a Union with one another. I used the Hong Kong example to reiterate how ridiculous it is.

 

I’m not even talking about Sony’s end anyway. I am talking about optional, regional leaderboards on PSNProfiles for those who want to “represent” their state, province or in the case of the UK — country. It’s not even that important anyway. I’ve already said that a proper rarity leaderboard is a better idea.

[Hakoom]

2 hours ago, Bliss said:

 Hakoom is #1 in the world and the US however he isn’t American from what I can gather.
 

 

 

well i wish psnp would change my flag to my real country.. i dont mind it

 

and it would be better if everyone used his real country by changing his flag..

ofcourse to stop exploiting this option ppl who tend to change there flags have to prove it

[Bliss]

6 minutes ago, Hakoom said:

 

well i wish psnp would change my flag to my real country.. i dont mind it

 

and it would be better if everyone used his real country by changing his flag..

ofcourse to stop exploiting this option ppl who tend to change there flags have to prove it

Please don’t take that part as criticism or an insult. It certainly wasn’t intended to be, was just trying to get a point across is all. 

[Hakoom]

54 minutes ago, Bliss said:

Please don’t take that part as criticism or an insult. It certainly wasn’t intended to be, was just trying to get a point across is all. 

 

why not at all lol

i do not even see where is the criticism ?

 

 

[Milktastrophe]

If people were allowed to change their country then I don't think there should be any proof requirement. Let anyone compete in any country they wish and change as often as they want. You can already manipulate the rankings to an extent by hiding and unhiding games which will lower or raise your ranking (affecting everyone around you). Switching country leaderboards is a similar thing.

 

Plus I want to pick an uninhabited country, like New Zealand, so I can be #1. ?

[Bliss]

52 minutes ago, Milktastrophe said:

If people were allowed to change their country then I don't think there should be any proof requirement. Let anyone compete in any country they wish and change as often as they want. You can already manipulate the rankings to an extent by hiding and unhiding games which will lower or raise your ranking (affecting everyone around you). Switching country leaderboards is a similar thing.

 

Plus I want to pick an uninhabited country, like New Zealand, so I can be #1.

Yeah, proof shouldn’t be required for anything whatsoever, nor do I really have any issue with people using accounts different to their real region as their main account. I’m not sure @nahbolt would be too pleased about that last part.  

[scemopagliaccioh]

On 6/2/2020 at 11:56 PM, sepheroithisgod said:

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.

Agreed, I think following TT's method about this,  and maybe even make it better would be a huge boon.

Edited February 8, 2020 by scemopagliaccioh

[WakeUpHP]

On 2/6/2020 at 8:28 PM, Milktastrophe said:

Quick link to the existing rarity leaderboard:

 

https://psnprofiles.com/leaderboard/rarity

Why is it that so many of these people are listed here but have all their trophies hidden and are not on the main LB?  Have they been removed as cheaters or have they simply hidden themselves?

Edited February 8, 2020 by WakeUpHP

[Bliss]

57 minutes ago, WakeUpHP said:

Why is it that so many of these people are listed here but have all their trophies hidden and are not on the main LB?  Have they been removed as cheaters or have they simply hidden themselves?

Most likely a mix of both.

[Kal2210]

1 hour ago, WakeUpHP said:

Why is it that so many of these people are listed here but have all their trophies hidden and are not on the main LB?  Have they been removed as cheaters or have they simply hidden themselves?

I’m not sure how legitimate those rarity rankings are. That was the main reason for my post. To have a visible, well maintained leaderboard for rarity. I still think that Beyond’s idea is very solid.

[zajac9999]

5 hours ago, WakeUpHP said:

Why is it that so many of these people are listed here but have all their trophies hidden and are not on the main LB?  Have they been removed as cheaters or have they simply hidden themselves?

 

The rarity leaderboards aren't updated, so when someone hacks many games with completion times of a few seconds on a large scale they're removed from the normal leaderboards (due to obvious hacking) but they're not removed from the rarity leaderboards. Just shows as a profile with hidden trophies instead. The top of the rarity leaderboards aren't accurate at all lol, I'd guess at least 50% of the first page is hackers, if not more.

 

Edit: A few of the 'legit' ones are pretty obvious team accounts too. Although that'll be true of the top of any leaderboards I guess.

Edited February 8, 2020 by zajac9999

[Cassylvania]

@Beyondthegrave07 has probably the best, simplest solution I've seen to this problem. Just make all common trophies worth nothing. That's so much better than shaming people for playing easy games or subtracting from their overall score. Common trophies are, for lack of a better phrase, participation trophies. They're achievements almost anybody is going to get if they play through the game diligently. It's nice to have them (personally, I think they're a great incentive to get players working towards the platinum), but they're not likely something you're going to want to display on your shelf (unless the overall goal is to have a lot of them, which is what the main leaderboard is used for now).

 

Having each subsequent tier of rarity be worth 15, 30, 90, and 180 points is perfect. It's the exact system that was created by PlayStation for trophies, only with actual data to back it up, rather than what developers arbitrarily call bronze, silver, or gold. It doesn't hurt people who play easy games, but it also doesn't let them flood the leaderboard with stacks or two minute platinums. Except, of course, stacks of considerably harder games, which should be acceptable. I have no idea why people think stacks of Demon's Souls shouldn't count.

 

I like this a lot more than the ribbon system, which seems subjective, confusing, and overly complicated.

[Bezenko]

3 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

@Beyondthegrave07 has probably the best, simplest solution I've seen to this problem. Just make all common trophies worth nothing. That's so much better than shaming people for playing easy games or subtracting from their overall score. Common trophies are, for lack of a better phrase, participation trophies. They're achievements almost anybody is going to get if they play through the game diligently. It's nice to have them (personally, I think they're a great incentive to get players working towards the platinum), but they're not likely something you're going to want to display on your shelf (unless the overall goal is to have a lot of them, which is what the main leaderboard is used for now).

 

Having each subsequent tier of rarity be worth 15, 30, 90, and 180 points is perfect. It's the exact system that was created by PlayStation for trophies, only with actual data to back it up, rather than what developers arbitrarily call bronze, silver, or gold. It doesn't hurt people who play easy games, but it also doesn't let them flood the leaderboard with stacks or two minute platinums. Except, of course, stacks of considerably harder games, which should be acceptable. I have no idea why people think stacks of Demon's Souls shouldn't count.

 

I like this a lot more than the ribbon system, which seems subjective, confusing, and overly complicated.

 

While this is is the simplest formula and a calculation everyone can understand. I think a rarity leaderboard also should encourage players to go for the sub 1% trophies and definitely reward the players who earn 0.1% trophies. Making a 0.1% equal a 5% just doesn’t seem right to me.

[Mori]

1 minute ago, Bezenko said:

 

While this is is the simplest formula and a calculation everyone can understand. I think a rarity leaderboard also should encourage players to go for the sub 1% trophies and definitely reward the players who earn 0.1% trophies. Making a 0.1% equal a 5% just doesn’t seem right to me.

 

It would be a great start though. What .x% gives how much points can be discussed after there is a working rarity leaderboard on a basic forumla. Before that doesnt happen, everything else is just daydreaming stuff that wont come to fruition anyway.

[DaivRules]

5 minutes ago, Bezenko said:

 

While this is is the simplest formula and a calculation everyone can understand. I think a rarity leaderboard also should encourage players to go for the sub 1% trophies and definitely reward the players who earn 0.1% trophies. Making a 0.1% equal a 5% just doesn’t seem right to me.

Where would you make the divisions sub-5%? 2.49% and below? 1% and below?

 

Depending on how you make the case, this could be reasonable. We are already talking about trophies 95% of game owners, by definition, haven’t earned. Would making a .1% equal a 1% make sense?

[Kal2210]

2 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

Where would you make the divisions sub-5%? 2.49% and below? 1% and below?

 

Depending on how you make the case, this could be reasonable. We are already talking about trophies 95% of game owners, by definition, haven’t earned. Would making a .1% equal a 1% make sense?

Personally, I think either a <.5% or a <1% cutoff would definitely improve the formula. Extraordinarily few trophies are <.1% anyway. The only other thing I think would improve Beyond’s formula, though again would complicate it, would be making platinums add some type of additional value (obviously common plats still worth nothing).

[Beyondthegrave07]

On 2/6/2020 at 3:50 PM, 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.

I also wanted to bring this up in case anyone actually looked at the leaderboard...

 

https://psnprofiles.com/leaderboard/rarity

 

I know what you're thinking, "Hakoom is at 21st and a bunch of new guys are at top, how is that not different?" Click on any profile above Hakoom except warped_tonttu... They're all private profiles (and probably for a good reason). They shouldn't be on the leaderboards at all. The people at the top are still there and you can tell the leaderboard is definitely not as polished as the normal one.

 

Also, I entertained the idea of letting commons count as 1, but I still think that'll screw the rarity board too much (again, we'd have to see it in action before deciding). The reason I say this is because Hakoom has 50,900 (and counting) common trophies. That's roughly 283 UR trophies to make up the difference. I don't know how many URs everyone has, but that's not something that can be easily obtained. That's like 15%-25% of the top guy's URs (that's also 4 times as many as I currently have) ?.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Beyondthegrave07

[Undead Wolf]

I just wanted to say that I love some of the ideas being suggested in this thread, especially making it so common trophies are worth nothing. If a proper rarity leaderboard was actually implemented, it would be cool if there was a setting you could enable that replaced the standard leaderboard with the rarity one on all profiles you view, much in the same way you can choose if PSN rarity or PSNP rarity is displayed. Hell, maybe even make the rarity leaderboard the new default setting.

 

I've never been all that interested in the leaderboard we have now because it rewards people who play trashy games with easy trophy lists (AKA trophy whores), making it pretty much impossible for the rest of us to progress after a certain point. I would definitely pay attention to a rarity leaderboard though.

[B1rvine]

3 hours ago, Beyondthegrave07 said:

Also, I entertained the idea of letting commons count as 1, but I still think that'll screw the rarity board too much (again, we'd have to see it in action before deciding). The reason I say this is because Hakoom has 50,900 (and counting) common trophies. That's roughly 283 UR trophies to make up the difference.

 

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).

 

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by B1rvine

[Kal2210]

12 minutes 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.

 

 

I don’t think the goal is to take away trophies from people. An uncommon trophy should give points, just less than something rarer. It’s fine that quantity has some impact. Most uncommon plats can’t be done in under an hour. This would at least get rid of all ultra EZPZs and EZ stacks which is the primary hope for a lot of people I think. The goal for those common plat games would be for them to not count at all because the primary reason many people play them are for easy, quick trophies.

[B1rvine]

23 minutes ago, Kal2210 said:

I don’t think the goal is to take away trophies from people. An uncommon trophy should give points, just less than something rarer. It’s fine that quantity has some impact. Most uncommon plats can’t be done in under an hour. This would at least get rid of all ultra EZPZs and EZ stacks which is the primary hope for a lot of people I think. The goal for those common plat games would be for them to not count at all because the primary reason many people play them are for easy, quick trophies.

 

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