Less points for the games with a lot of achievements

I guess one possible solution would be to individually ban those games from the score. Would there really be any protest if that happened ? And I doubt new games would pop up faster than they can be banned.

Atarun said:I wasn't saying to cap every game, however even if every game was capped, a ratio of 1 would give you 1k, a ratio of 3.5 would give you more, meaning the harder games would still give more points.

Also, this devs aren't going to change their spam cos steam tracking sites fucked with their points. They only care about the money, not the achievements, or the system, or what we do with it.

Persevere said:That game is in my library before, i like to completed game but i hate to earn these one easily. Honestly, I am shame to get point to play these spam achievement games. I like to cut all my point to these games, same with others. These game are plague in my humble opinion.

I'd play these game before because in my regional, these people mess up a leaderboard and world leaderboard too. It is not fair to people working so hard to get achievement, playing along co-op to get hard achievement, doing some event achievement, try again and again ... till completed.

But this spam achievement game, made it useless.

So if it odd, I got no problem here ... get cut all my point of spamming achievements game. The real question is ... will some other people like to cut too ?

I would love to have a site-wide switch (in my preferences) to disable these games. Which means every stat I see would just ignore them.

I would also love these achievement spam games to stop being counted.

No. Current system on TSA is pretty good, and no need changes.
Break point system every half year (as Astats did) is bad decision.

TrueSteam said: I'm new to the achievement hunting world (playing solely for achievements) But my take and suggestion on this issue is this. Instead of changing the current system to work around the spam game is implement a bonus for rarer achievements kinda of like what they did on xbox with the diamond achivements. So for example if only 5% of total players have x achievement it get x amount of bonus to the score so long as 5% of players have that achievement.

How does everyone feel about this now that Steam has stepped in and limited achievements to 5000?

daysocks said:I think 5,000 is still way too many. They're kind of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I think if people have a certain number (5?) of these games in their library they should get a badge of shame.

sandypantscufc said:What a fucking ridiculous idea. This is an achievement hunters site - Plus, now that Steam have officially limited games to 5000 achievements the argument against games like Zup and SDFGenocide is moot - they all fall well underneath the "cap", so therefore are within the terms of service at Steam, and have no right to be altered.

Most of us are here to hunt achievements and climb the site leaderboards. That's why the True Network was created! To do what Astats have done and alter the scoring to appease the handful of whining twats who don't want to stay in the race is retarded.

Leave the system well enough alone. Steam isn't Xbox Live, it isn't PSN, it supports titles having thousands of achievements, not dozens.

If you want to climb a capped leaderboard, fuck off and join Astats who pander to the cry babies. If you want to climb the TSA leaderboards and earn points into the millions, you have to accept the system: Steam themselves have said <5001 achievements is acceptable. So suck it up.

And for God's sake, admins, don't change a thing. Don't pander to the lowest denominator. This is a competition, it doesn't require handicapping for those who don't want to spend 45p on a puzzle game.

Not to mention how it would screw up games like TOME and Logistical.

Mataeus said:My are you full of self-righteous indignation.

ManOfNantucket said:As a member of a website based around hunting achievements, the idea to pin a "badge of shame" on anyone who does so via the path of least resistance is insane. So of course I hit back with righteous indignation. I'm not self righteous, though - clearly, due to the way I speak with strangers on the internet; full up, frank and on the nose. It's about the site, not about me

So, your idea of achievement hunting is to pay games that gives you thousands of achievements for nothing and thus rendering nearly every others games achievements basically worthless? If you can get in the top of the rankings just by paying and without any skill then maybe the problems lies in the ranking system.

Personally, i'm against the change because then people like you stays here instead of going to whine on astats that they can't just pay to get 100.000 more points for nothing and that they have to actually play games to do it.

rezoons said:Yay, then we're all happy !

Incidentally, I do my main achievement hunting on the Xbox:
link hidden
I've been diving a lot of new (to my collection) games recently, but order the list by ratio and you'll see I have plenty of 'skilled' achievements. On Steam, I'm not fussy at all - I'm just going for the leaderboards.

On the Xbox platform, I'm far more interested in earning 'real' achievements which stretch my gaming experience and allow me to enjoy aspects of games I might otherwise not do, such as playing through Halo: Reach, solo on Legendary, or going for ridiculous pinball scores, or beating X-COM without losing a soldier - that kind of thing. I love going through hours of anguish to reach that feeling of euphoria when you finally reach your goal. I'm an Elite: Dangerous player, for goodness' sake! That feeling when you achieve something difficult, whether tied to a profile cheev or not, is an awesome extension of gaming as a whole and allows me, as I say, to get more out of my games.

On Steam I have hundreds of games which require proper 'earning' of achievements. Games I've yet to start, and games I've just started, such as TOME and Darkest Dungeon.

It's just that, on Steam, I don't feel the same connection as I do to Xbox. Here, for me, I don't care about devaluation, I just enjoy the leaderboard competition on TSA. That doesn't mean I'm not going to enjoy working through Deus Ex Revision, or Banished, or Civ V though.

I will, and I'll love it.

Just remove these games. They invalidate the whole point of a website like this.

I think what astats did was good, in that once a game 'tripped' a certain level of achievements below the point threshold, they are forever capped at a certain level of points. Still worth something for those that actually enjoy them, but they lose all appeal as a means to 'climb' the leaderboard, and not affecting any other games.

The one thing this site does do better is to adjust the values of achievements added via DLC or in updates, so maybe a simple adjustment to the scale would be all it takes to make thing more competitive. At the moment the scale goes from 10 to around 200, giving a ratio of 20:1. If the bottom of the scale was 1, or even 0.1, but the top was left the same then a game with 1000 easy achievements would be worth 100 instead of 10 000.

Perhaps the scale can be based on the number of achievements the game has in total? So a game with less than 200 achievements, the bottom of the scale is 10. One with 200 to 600 it drops to 1, and over 600 it drops to 0.1? Then hard games with less achievements are not impacted at all.

I have damn near 500,000 points, and I'm ranked 239 on the site. I've played almost no games that would actually warrant so many points, I just got the spam games for free.

They need to be capped, they ruin the leaderboards and remove any competition. I was fine when it was just zup, but these games are gonna keep happening, and keep polluting the leader-board.

rezoons said:Your argument is that people who buy more games get more achievements? Short of having some altruistic trillionaire socializing the gaming world by giving everyone all of the games and stopping time so that everyone has an equal chance to play, there will always be an inequity of time or money spent playing games and earning achievements. Using that as a reason to nerf certain types of games is socio-economic, and not really a valid reason, IMHO for making changes to TrueSteamAchievements.

As to Astats.nl or achievementstats.com they are both great sites for achievement hunters as well, but approach things differently. On that argument, one could suppose say that if TSA wants to be just like those sites, they could copy the algorithms of the other sites and then we would have three sites that are nearly clones of each other. I would hope that didn't happen. At one time, it seemed like the three sites had three different flavors to them, and I like all of them. I think that those other two are very similar to each other now. As to metagamerscore, their algorithm is very hard for me to figure out because the scores can vary so wildly from day to day, so I have no opinion. I don't spend any time whining on any site about achievements, just refuting your contention that economics or time available should dictate how an achievement site is run, and also to give feedback to the admin(s) of TSA as they requested, as a fan of this site.

Some people choose to spend their time and money on games that have a lot of achievements and tend to cost 1-2 Euros, whilst others play games that cost 50-80 Euros and may not have any achievements. "To each their own." Millions of gamers do not care at all about achievements and that is great! Hundreds enjoy having a large number of achievements and sites like these are designed for those achievement hunters. I am sure there are sites for best kills in CoD or GTA V best troll, but this site is for achievement hunters, and therefore for achievements.

I think this site balances the sheer number of achievements rankings with the difficulty rating, which is reflected in the TSA ratio. I am, for example, one with alot of achievements and thus am highly ranked in that regard. In contrast, my TSA ratio is very near to the bottom. I think the algorithms therefore allow for two types of achievement hunters to find rankings that they can be satisfied with. TSA Ratio for quality, and proper respect to those with very high TSA ratios they earned, and for quantity to those players who are into collecting a high number of achievements. Then there are a few that are both, and they are properly addicted to playing games XD.

I say let the algorithms and rankings stay as they are and let the TSA ratio separate the achievement quality vs. quantity achievement hunters.

TSA Ratio leaderboard would be a great measure of quality if that board actually worked, but it doesn't even remotely function correctly and hasn't since I joined this site. At some point this may be fixed, but it doesn't seem to be high priority. Be that as it may, I don't agree that the points leaderboard should cater towards 4 digit quick achievement games as the total achievement leaderboard already does this.

It is very odd to me that when looking at many 7 digit scores, you find that 30% or more of those points come from a handful of games that when combine, took less than a day. I don't really agree with some kind of 'badge of shame' or even necessarily capping the games as low as possible, but rather I think a middle ground between the two extreme's would go a long way. In that regard, I like yobokkie's idea as that could be fine tuned where the game's aren't absolutely worthless, but yet aren't the 'end all be all' for points.

My suggestion for a change is this. For games with a large number of achievements, the system gives even lower weight to lower ratio achievements.

If a game has >=250 achievements, then we reduce any achievements with 75+% completion by 0.2 ratio. The game will still offer a large number of points, by the sheer number of achievements, but its easier achievements lose weight.

For >=500 achievements, we drop the ratio by 0.4 for 75+%.
For >=750 achievements, we drop the ratio by 0.6 for 75+%.
And finally, for >=1000 achievements, we drop the ratio by 0.8 for 75+%.

In this way, a game with a large achievement pool will have its trivial achievements devalued. They still count for points, but at a much lower rate, reducing their effect on the standings. (The ratio being changed will also mean that players with a large number of these achievements will show a very low ratio, potentially even bringing their average ratio below 1.00.)

On the other hand, a game with loads of content, that incentivizes different play styles with achievements for doing disparate things, or a game with a significant number of more difficult achievements, will have a large number of achievements remain with less than 75% completion, and therefore maintain a high value.

Tales of MajEyal, previously noted, would have exactly 1 achievement be penalized -- the Baby Steps achievement would now be worth 3 points, not 11. The same is true for LOGistICAL (only a dozen or so achievements would be lowered to 2-3 points.) Most 'legitimate' games would receive little or no penalty with this system.

(Edited this suggestion to change it from lowering the base score to lowering the ratio.)