What PSN level do you consider “Elite” Tier?

[PalaceOfLove706]

Let’s get a working conceptualization going. Is it level 40? 50? 100? What’s considered “good” and “average” as well?

[DrBloodmoney]

I think there are only ‘Elite’ for game specific stuff really.

 

Just having a high psn number is pretty achievable without being good at any games. Elite players are the guys who probably have a psn level of, like, 2... but have mastered whatever game they love, be it a fighting game, an FPS, or whatever.

 

I’m not just being a contrarian here - I am never particularly impressed by high psn level, but seeing awesome play by a master player - even in games I don’t personally like - is always impressive to me.

Those guys are the Elite.

 

[PalaceOfLove706]

14 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I think there are only ‘Elite’ for game specific stuff really.

 

Just having a high psn number is pretty achievable without being good at any games. Elite players are the guys who probably have a psn level of, like, 2... but have mastered whatever game they love, be it a fighting game, an FPS, or whatever.

 

I’m not just being a contrarian here - I am never particularly impressed by high psn level, but seeing awesome play by a master player - even in games I don’t personally like - is always impressive to me.

Those guys are the Elite.

 

Yes there are accounts out there who achieve ultra rare stunts that may not get the recognition on the leaderboard. It’s a shame there isn’t a stat yet that can account for rarity on this site and have that influence ranking, although I’m sure that would be discussed. But really though, I think credit is due to accounts that grind out many games and earn many achievements, it shows a certain passion that is worthy of recognition.

[LoveInHell]

I don’t think level means that much. There’s people with a higher level but they don’t have many platinums, they just played a lot of games. I seen profiles like this a lot.

[PalaceOfLove706]

21 minutes ago, LoveInHell said:

I don’t think level means that much. There’s people with a higher level but they don’t have many platinums, they just played a lot of games. I seen profiles like this a lot.

At the same time there are some completionist profiles who are high ranked. I know the accounts you’re talking about, they tend to have insane amounts of bronze story related trophies.

[LoveInHell]

4 minutes ago, PalaceOfLove706 said:

At the same time there are some completionist profiles who are high ranked. I know the accounts you’re talking about, they tend to have insane amounts of bronze story related trophies.

You can get a high rank by just casually playing and it also depends on how many points a trophy gives. Someone had less trophies than me but was a higher level than me.

[Astray404]

I do admire those high level trophy hunters tbh even if their lists are full of Ratalaika games. I'm on my way to the 150th plat and it's already difficult for me to find games that I enjoy and really want to play. Playing and getting the plat trophy on games that you don't like /  that are not your type... somehow seems impressive 

[PalaceOfLove706]

6 minutes ago, LoveInHell said:

You can get a high rank by just casually playing and it also depends on how many points a trophy gives. Someone had less trophies than me but was a higher level than me.

Yeah those developers that made those “easy gold/plat” games contributed to inflation. I see a few accounts that play them explicitly but won’t name them here. But what I’m talking about here is a tier where it’s clear the player is 1) very good and 2) plays a lot of games. Like some level 100+ that doesn’t cheat, you don’t get there without some kind of skill, no?

[Sword]

Hmm. I would say it doesn't take much skill to get a high PSN level. More like a fat wallet or a gang of friends to share games between, is more like it. Because you have to play the games to get that high of a level, which means someone has to buy them... it also doesn't mean you have no life either. You can play easy games for 2-3 hours a day and zoom straight past a vast majority of the PSN userbase. It's more how you utilize the time given to you. You could spend 60 hours in a RPG for one single plat or spend those 60 hours across 20 different easy games and earn 20x or more the amount of PSN level progress in the same amount of time.

 

I'd attribute the most "skill", in terms of trophy hunting, to those that actively tackle ultra rare plats that take a lot of time and effort to do. Things that most players say "screw this I'm out". It's kind of wishy washy in a lot of aspects though. I think it really depends on what matters to you with this hobby.

 

Like, a high PSN level might mean jack to you if you're not a fan of chasing easy games. It might mean a whole hell of a lot though if you're one of those players actually chasing the higher level. That's why I love this hobby, there's so many different avenues and play styles that you really can't be too judgmental on one way or another way. What might mean a lot to you means nothing to someone else, etc. The whole "Why does PSNP not have more leaderboards" has been beaten to death. If I had more time in my life, I'd take a stab at creating my own trophy tracking website myself because I think PSNP is a bit dated but alas.... my time is limited. Haha. 

 

To be fair to the topic at hand, let's pretend that PSN level mattered a lot. Then I'd say, probably for an average  around maybe level 50 or more is pretty "elite"? I mean most people I've seen are around level 12-30. I think 50 is a great middle ground between "Wow you have a lot of plats" and "Geez do you even have a life?". 

 

 

[PalaceOfLove706]

1 minute ago, Sword said:

Hmm. I would say it doesn't take much skill to get a high PSN level. More like a fat wallet or a gang of friends to share games between, is more like it. Because you have to play the games to get that high of a level, which means someone has to buy them... it also doesn't mean you have no life either. You can play easy games for 2-3 hours a day and zoom straight past a vast majority of the PSN userbase. It's more how you utilize the time given to you. You could spend 60 hours in a RPG for one single plat or spend those 60 hours across 20 different easy games and earn 20x or more the amount of PSN level progress in the same amount of time.

 

I'd attribute the most "skill", in terms of trophy hunting, to those that actively tackle ultra rare plats that take a lot of time and effort to do. Things that most players say "screw this I'm out". It's kind of wishy washy in a lot of aspects though. I think it really depends on what matters to you with this hobby.

 

Like, a high PSN level might mean jack to you if you're not a fan of chasing easy games. It might mean a whole hell of a lot though if you're one of those players actually chasing the higher level. That's why I love this hobby, there's so many different avenues and play styles that you really can't be too judgmental on one way or another way. What might mean a lot to you means nothing to someone else, etc. The whole "Why does PSNP not have more leaderboards" has been beaten to death. If I had more time in my life, I'd take a stab at creating my own trophy tracking website myself because I think PSNP is a bit dated but alas.... my time is limited. Haha. 

 

To be fair to the topic at hand, let's pretend that PSN level mattered a lot. Then I'd say, probably for an average  around maybe level 50 or more is pretty "elite"? I mean most people I've seen are around level 12-30. I think 50 is a great middle ground between "Wow you have a lot of plats" and "Geez do you even have a life?". 

 

 

I appreciate you answering the question LOL. And yes, ultra rare trophies are the first stat I look at in a profile. And there are high ranked accounts that do have many as well. I respect both.

[Elvick_]

None

[DaivRules]

There’s probably a list of specific trophies across a range of games that I would think best show someone is a skilled gamer, depending on how many they have earned, but when you throw in account sharing, remote play, cfw, none of it is particularly trustworthy these days. 

Rarity, leaderboard position, profile level don’t really indicate anything specific, especially that someone is an “elite” gamer. 

[PalaceOfLove706]

3 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

There’s probably a list of specific trophies across a range of games that I would think best show someone is a skilled gamer, depending on how many they have earned, but when you throw in account sharing, remote play, cfw, none of it is particularly trustworthy these days. 

Rarity, leaderboard position, profile level don’t really indicate anything specific, especially that someone is an “elite” gamer. 

Lol, ok I’m feeling the cynicism with respect to rank - I’d be interested though in what those list of trophies you think indicate it, just so I can go after them

[Helyx]

Back in like 2009, if you had a trophy level of 19, you had that big dick.

[PalaceOfLove706]

4 minutes ago, Helyx said:

Back in like 2009, if you had a trophy level of 19, you had that big dick.

LOL!

[IroN-AllActioN]

On 09/05/2020 at 3:07 PM, PalaceOfLove706 said:

Yes there are accounts out there who achieve ultra rare stunts that may not get the recognition on the leaderboard. It’s a shame there isn’t a stat yet that can account for rarity on this site and have that influence ranking, although I’m sure that would be discussed. But really though, I think credit is due to accounts that grind out many games and earn many achievements, it shows a certain passion that is worthy of recognition.

 

Interesting concept, a more 'relative' or 'quality' leaderboard. I'm sure there are some trophy hunters out there who would definitely prefer that over the current pure quantity approach.

 

For example they could take the sum of trophies and divide it by the mean percentage of trophy rarity, then times that by overall mean game completion percentage. 

 

x= (sum of trophies / mean% trophy rarity) x mean % game completion

 

That's one way, I'm sure they could refine an algorithm to provide a fairer trophy leaderboard to account for those who are a bit more obsessed with more difficult platinums!

[ladynadiad]

Honestly I think PSN level means very little beyond saying this person has earned a lot of trophies.  It doesn't say anything about how long they have been playing, how many games they actually complete, how many games they've played, etc.  There's just far too much variance between what you can see of profiles at the same level.  I know for the PSN level I have, I have a rather low number of trophies because I have a lot more plats than most at the same level. 

 

I do agree that it would be nice if this site had some more leaderboards for other stats.  One site I use for Steam achievements called AStats has a ton of leaderboards.  So they have stuff like average game completion, number of games completed, number of achievements, and so on, so people can see where they rank in whatever stats matter to them and not just sheer amount of points.  Another site I use has a completist leaderboard that ranks everyone based on points earned in 100% completed games only, which is a neat idea too.  I am very much of the opinion that more variety in leaderboards is great because it allows people to easily compare themselves to others in stats that matter to them, not just one stat that many players won't get to the top spots in just because they joined later, or they don't have as much time to play, etc.

[PalaceOfLove706]

24 minutes ago, ladynadiad said:

Honestly I think PSN level means very little beyond saying this person has earned a lot of trophies.  It doesn't say anything about how long they have been playing, how many games they actually complete, how many games they've played, etc.  There's just far too much variance between what you can see of profiles at the same level.  I know for the PSN level I have, I have a rather low number of trophies because I have a lot more plats than most at the same level. 

 

I do agree that it would be nice if this site had some more leaderboards for other stats.  One site I use for Steam achievements called AStats has a ton of leaderboards.  So they have stuff like average game completion, number of games completed, number of achievements, and so on, so people can see where they rank in whatever stats matter to them and not just sheer amount of points.  Another site I use has a completist leaderboard that ranks everyone based on points earned in 100% completed games only, which is a neat idea too.  I am very much of the opinion that more variety in leaderboards is great because it allows people to easily compare themselves to others in stats that matter to them, not just one stat that many players won't get to the top spots in just because they joined later, or they don't have as much time to play, etc.

I admit I do like the cumulative leaderboard and would hate to see it go, but “adding” other ones would be great too and different players could go after different stats 

[ladynadiad]

2 minutes ago, PalaceOfLove706 said:

I admit I do like the cumulative leaderboard and would hate to see it go, but “adding” other ones would be great too and different players could go after different stats 

 

And I'd not want it to go even if I think it has little meaning.  I'd love to see something rating completion, unearned trophies, average rarity, average completion, number of UR trophies, number of plats, etc.  I'm personally a believer that if a site tracks a stat, they should have a way to compare yourself to others whether it's a leaderboard or just seeing who else ranks in a similar manner.  I think everyone has a spot in their profile where they will shine in a way that others won't.

[VigilantCrow]

On 5/9/2020 at 10:24 AM, PalaceOfLove706 said:

Let’s get a working conceptualization going. Is it level 40? 50? 100? What’s considered “good” and “average” as well?

TrueTrophies released that their user base's average trophy level is 22 with 29 Platinum Trophies.
I'd imagine that's probably a decent ballpark answer for what is considered average, if we're talking about the trophy community. If we're including all of PSN, the average is probably half of that number.

Source: https://www.(URL not allowed)/10kgames

 

How do you define "elite" or "good"? Is it based on the ability of a player to get a certain percentage of all trophies, in their area of expertise (where skill matters)? Is it based solely on trophy level (where disposable income matters)? Heck is is based on the number of trophies one is achieving per day (where time management matters)? Hard to conceptualize something so vague. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeCheck--]

Elite = two Ultra Rare plats and level 25+ guess I'm easy

[PalaceOfLove706]

13 minutes ago, ladynadiad said:

I think everyone has a spot in their profile where they will shine in a way that others won't.

Wonderfully said, there’s so much diversity out there in gamers! 

14 minutes ago, VigilantCrow said:

TrueTrophies released that their user base's average trophy level is 22 with 29 Platinum Trophies.
I'd imagine that's probably a decent ballpark answer for what is considered average, if we're talking about the trophy community. If we're including all of PSN, the average is probably half of that number.

Source: https://www.(URL not allowed)/10kgames

 

How do you define "elite" or "good"? Is it based on the ability of a player to get a certain percentage of all trophies, in their area of expertise (where skill matters)? Is it based solely on trophy level (where disposable income matters)? Heck is is based on the number of trophies one is achieving per day (where time management matters)? Hard to conceptualize something so vague. 

thanks for these stats and you ask some great questions worthy of a lot of debate
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lucas]

Whichever level I am on

[Beyondthegrave07]

I don't think a single level can indicate whether someone is an elite trophy hunter or not. I think a fairer assessment would be to look at stats like # of URs, average trophy rarity, completion % (to some extent), ratio of URs to commons, etc.

 

However, I do think that you need to be at least level 35-40 before I'd use the word, "elite" for any profile.

[WayfarerFox]

Back in the day the higher numbers used to mean something. Not so much now if you look at it that way.

 

Elite is always going to be subjective. Someone who barely gets trophies will consider someone with a higher level elite and someone with a higher level may see someone with x3 UR trophies than them and find them elite. So it's hard to pinpoint. I've never really considered anyone elite, I appreciate all accounts really whether you have 1,000 trophies or 20,000 trophies same goes for trophy rarity to.