Pursiy Me7Seven
Member
I have a suggestion! Can you add user's place on leaderboard to their profile? (I hope you'll understand what I writed, even translator don't helped me write this).
-
Steam recently changed the default privacy settings for all users. This may impact tracking. Ensure your profile has the correct settings by following the guide on our forums.
Introducing points system (EXP) and cross platform leaderboards
- Thread starter x3sphere
- Start date
Sorry I wrote it wrong in the post, it's players divided by earners, not the actual rarity percentage. Specifically the calculation is as follows:
ratio = (players / earners);
ratio = sqrt(ratio);
ratio = (10 * ratio);
You can see the EXP values for each achievement by hovering over the rarity percentage. As an example this game https://www.exophase.com/game/world-of-tanks-blitz-android/achievements/, the achievements with 0.81% rarity are worth 111 EXP. The common ones with 100% earned are worth just the base value of 10.
Yes makes sense, I'm going to add this very soon (had to make some changes to the database).
The values seem to be what I would expect, it's definitely giving a lot more EXP for rare achievements. Link me to a game though and I'll check.
Last edited:
I believe he’s talking about games that aren’t popular with rare achievements. A few games only have 1 or 2 players who both earned a really rare achievement but because 100% of this site that played it owns the achievement it becomes worth less.
Not really a solvable problem I think, it’s pretty much only caused in very small games with several players.
Example of what I said above: https://www.exophase.com/game/super-basic-incremental-android/achievements/#1180674
The 1^128 Achievement has 3% on Google Play but 50% on this site. That means it’s worth less for a rarer achievement.
If everyone has the same skill level who has played it then that game won’t give many points. This only affects smaller games.
The 1^128 Achievement has 3% on Google Play but 50% on this site. That means it’s worth less for a rarer achievement.
If everyone has the same skill level who has played it then that game won’t give many points. This only affects smaller games.
Yeah that makes sense. If the sample size for Google Play was larger I think it would be less of an issue, since there would be more of a varied skillset for each game. So might work itself out in time, as more Google Play users use the site, right now we only have 2,900 tracked in comparison to 400K+ on other platforms.
Ultimately we could have used the platform rarity to calculate EXP instead I suppose, but this comes with it's own issues, as I have looked on PSN for example and there are a lot of trophies that have a really low earned percentage but most would consider easy. So basing it on the site data made more sense to me. Neither solution is perfect though.
Ultimately we could have used the platform rarity to calculate EXP instead I suppose, but this comes with it's own issues, as I have looked on PSN for example and there are a lot of trophies that have a really low earned percentage but most would consider easy. So basing it on the site data made more sense to me. Neither solution is perfect though.
Skumblex
Member
Hi all,
this is not a full concept yet, but maybe something like this could make everyone happy:
First of all, you use sqrt(ratio) for the computation. Here I would suggest using some other function that converges to some constant value, thus setting a maximal number of exp that can be earned from one trophies. Maybe use 10*tanh(ratio*atanh(0.1)), which is normalized in such a way that the minimal exp is 10 and the maximal exp is 100. You can even play with the parameters to get the best slope.
Afterwards, in order to account for games with only a few players, use some kind of error on the number of players and archievers. Here I would suggest using a poisson error = sqrt(N).
Then for the calculation, add the error to the number of players and substract it from the number of earners (This maximizes the exp in favour of the player). Afterwards proceed as usual except that you use tanh instead of sqrt.
This way a game with only one player would have
Ratio = (1+sqrt(1))/(1-sqrt(1)) -> inf and therefore give the highest amount of exp. Using this method the calculation is always in favor of the player. And for games with a lot of players the error is so small that it does not really matter.
Two players, two archievers would result in approx 53 points and 100 players, 100 earners, would only give 12 exp.
The only downside is that you get rewarded for playing games, no one else has played before. But maybe this also is a good thing. This adds some kind of a meta game, as you can actively reduce the exp of a competitor by playing games only he has played before. This could easily increase the number of players for certain games.
this is not a full concept yet, but maybe something like this could make everyone happy:
First of all, you use sqrt(ratio) for the computation. Here I would suggest using some other function that converges to some constant value, thus setting a maximal number of exp that can be earned from one trophies. Maybe use 10*tanh(ratio*atanh(0.1)), which is normalized in such a way that the minimal exp is 10 and the maximal exp is 100. You can even play with the parameters to get the best slope.
Afterwards, in order to account for games with only a few players, use some kind of error on the number of players and archievers. Here I would suggest using a poisson error = sqrt(N).
Then for the calculation, add the error to the number of players and substract it from the number of earners (This maximizes the exp in favour of the player). Afterwards proceed as usual except that you use tanh instead of sqrt.
This way a game with only one player would have
Ratio = (1+sqrt(1))/(1-sqrt(1)) -> inf and therefore give the highest amount of exp. Using this method the calculation is always in favor of the player. And for games with a lot of players the error is so small that it does not really matter.
Two players, two archievers would result in approx 53 points and 100 players, 100 earners, would only give 12 exp.
The only downside is that you get rewarded for playing games, no one else has played before. But maybe this also is a good thing. This adds some kind of a meta game, as you can actively reduce the exp of a competitor by playing games only he has played before. This could easily increase the number of players for certain games.
Last edited:
This sounds nice, although then it becomes less skill based and more time based. Whoever has the most time to play random games not played yet would be way ahead of others. Would also give the ability to cheat by uploading an open source game to Steam with hundreds of achievements then making the game off sale. (Currently this gives 1k exp at most, this formula would give ~50k) 1k isn’t enough to make much difference in Steam but 50k is a pretty big gap.
antock
New Member
Google Play XP isn't representative of value, that's what Exophase XP can do better. Twice have their place.
Some updates today - the cross platform ranking now displays on profile pages and all the leaderboards are now using EXP as default for ranking. There is an order button at the top of the leaderboard that you can use to switch to the achievements or regular points (if available) ranking as well.
dr_doctor1992
New Member
I've been hoping for a cross-platform leaderboard like this since I first joined and was very happy to see this today when I decided to check on this site again. This is truly a unique achievement site now and looking forward to see it getting better. I normally spend most of my free time getting PSN trophies but this might make me feel a little less guilty spending some time on other platforms lol
It should be resolved now, someone pointed out that a lot of games with spam achievements on Steam were still being counted, I've fixed it.Hmm Steam exp more higher than PSN and Xbox?! Most of players in top 50 only play Steam games
Also, if you're using the beta, you can now sort games by EXP on the profile pages.
Last edited:
Gamer Steve
Well-Known Member
because of this i went from 19 to 50....oh well it needs to be balanced and fair...plus 50 is still sexy lol 
J
JSoup
Guest
So, why is it that Blizzard achievements don't seem to have exp at all?
At first I thought it might be because there isn't enough of a sampling size to calculate a score (several of my WoW achievements I'm the only listed unlocker), but going way back into my history, even ones any non-achievement hunter would unlock during the course of casual gameplay have no score attached to them.
At first I thought it might be because there isn't enough of a sampling size to calculate a score (several of my WoW achievements I'm the only listed unlocker), but going way back into my history, even ones any non-achievement hunter would unlock during the course of casual gameplay have no score attached to them.
They were being excluded from the EXP system for some reason. I made some changes, will be counted after the next calculation.
J
JSoup
Guest
Awesome, thanks!
Skumblex
Member
I think there are still some Google Play Booster games out there that give non-zero exp values, like e.g. https://www.exophase.com/game/clicker-increasing-the-level-android/achievements/. Maybe, it would make sense to also block all Google Play games with Clicker in the title?