Factoring Achievements Into Pro Rank

Ive seen some similar topics that touched on this, but wanted to see what the community's thoughts on this were.

A player who has done nothing but sp from day 1 can attain 49000 points in the current scoring system on pro.

But what then? there are over 60 people who have that score, and they aren't tied in the top rank; They are in chronological sequence, which, while somewhat informative in who did it first, still isn't really a true telling of a player's skills.

Lodestone has an achievement log which has been added to this site, but it isnt being utilized as any sort of bonus points to determine one's "true" rank. I have even seen other sites competing with pro that do calculate that into a player's overall score. Why wouldn't pro want to let its members show off their... er, um... prowess?

i'd like to know the same. i spend a lot of time getting achievements.

If someone would like associate a score for each achievement and it acceptable to the public then I will implement it. I just don't know enough about the game to gauge the level of difficulty for each achievement.

I'm not a huge fan of points being assigned to achievements since the weight and difficulty of said achievement changes over time. I think that having the ability to look through a list of what someone has done is enough and each player can then apply their own ranking system in their head to the player.

As we play the game we all know how hard or easy something is, do we really need a number assigned to it to rank everyone? Especially a number that becomes invalid over time in a game that is evolving as rapidly as this one is.

I can understand rankings and ratings and number in things like Xbox Live which involves static games with a set level of difficulty in which the game mechanics don't change over time. In other words, it's just as hard to beat level 3-2 in Super Mario 3 today as it was when it first came out. Using FFXI as a parallel, it isn't anywhere near as hard to level from 1-capped today as it was 5 years ago; although maybe with that game we should start giving out points to people for having their skill levels capped off lol.

Just figured I'd throw my two cents into the ring.

....... only someone with a low server ranking would make that comment -.-

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkrmEj7kMbzkdDlOU2R1ellrcGJFZE9KakMwSmFpbXc&hl=en_US

Here is a list of the ones in my DB. You can copy it or make a new sheet whatever. I locked the template sheet.

Well, if it were my perspective, half of the game is the grind, and the other half is the content behind the grind.
Seeing that there are roughly 490 known achievements, we could use this baseline as a standard going forward, rather than readjusting when new content comes out; We could issue the same score for every achievement, and let the sum amount add up. so, if current cap is 49000, and we issue that equally to all achievements, it results in almost exactly 100 points per achievement. i am sure the recalculation would be a popular thing to see. :)

And yes, the end result would be someone with "everything sp and achievement" to be currently near the 100,000 points realm.

Greatly Edited... I've been working on finishing functional requirements and setting up some use cases and models for an application for my portfolio... all day... without coffee... and I'm a little touchy.

Really though my opinion has nothing to do with my server rank. My thoughts on the topic come more so from the fact that people such as the op see the score as being a rank of ones true ability to play the game effectively and by their logic someone with a "high score" is a "better player" than those with a lower score. In a game like Galaga that works, since it's the same game from way back in the day to now. The high score data from 1982 is still relevant in 2012.

The number scores in an MMO like 14 or 11 however go out of date very quickly. (the word mission is interchangeable with almost anything done in the game btw) When missions are new and players complete the initial score given is probably correct. However after strategies are mapped out by those players the missions become easier until they get to a point where they can no longer become easier until a nerf is applied to the mission. Some missions don't become easier because they are extremely difficult and only a nerf would make them simpler.

In my world to determine who is best i would use... players who come up with good strategies to beat something new > players who follow a strategy > players who wait for a nerf > players who leech a win. Simply assigning numbers doesn't meet any of those requirements to determine who is "better". All those players in the current system would receive a score static score, how can you use that to determine value of a player?

To me a system like that isn't worth anything, and creates extra work that returns little or no real value and only a perceived value to those players who put any stock into the system.

Again... that's my two cents... figured I had to clarify my position since my last post obviously didn't get across the point that I think rankings and points and even achievements are a bit on the gimmick side of things. I know I'm a rebel and all, but I don't even have my 360 hooked up to the internet, that's how much I don't care about achievement points in relation to games.

And people would debate readjusting the points because Batraal is harder than Daddy Long Legs, but is easier then 100000 kills. The system I am suggesting would be unified, making a playor's worth a sum of its parts rather than the leetness of any particular achievement. some you would gain automatically in the process of grinding, and some near the end you could strive for just to try to reach the tip top of the ranking mountain. the point is, it would prevent stagnancy, for as long as there is new content, there can be a new king of the hill.

In the interest of actually discussing a system, and putting my own ideas of revamping not only the points but the actual calculation (which would be a ton of work), which while on the way to Starbucks I did think of, I read your idea over a few times. So to get it straight you system would assign identical point values to all achievements and you could earn them over and over again with no point cap? Just not 100% sure I understand it.

I like the idea though that as long as new stuff is coming out, someone different can always be on top. A flat system would certainly be a lot easier since when new content comes out a value is already assigned to it without having to judge the difficulty of content itself and thus removes any subjectivity.

Since there are no repeatable achievements, the growth would not be to infinity. If a player, today, had 49000 points for everything to r50, and then had taken the extra steps to attain every single achievement, they would still be just shy of 98000 points.

No achievement would be given worth over another, a player's net worth would be based on how thorough they were at completing every facet of the game. :) It would be less about "first" credit, more "completion" credit. But everything added together would show how well-rounded you had become.

This is a much more realistic metric to use, since as you said, it remains objective.

That makes more sense as it puts the game on more of a percentage scale rather than points alone. If each task or achievement is weighted the same you could say "You have achieved 97% of all the tasks there are to complete in the game"... each task is worth the exact same percentage as every other task... where as it stands now in 11 it's trying to put some extra meaning behind each task by weighting it.

A system like what you are suggesting rates a player on how much they have done, not that they have done the things that will earn them the most points and stick them up on top immediately. If a getting r50 is the same as killing x boss or doing y mission it evens out, it's when you try to apply some weight to that is when the system becomes susceptible to time and opinion. New content just increases the total amount of points and decreases the total percentage that each individual item is worth, but the important part is that they are all even. Example... CoP is worth what it was when it first came out as it is today, but it's not worth more than anything else. So someone cannot just go out and do those missions because they are worth a ton of points, ignore the low point items, and have a higher rank than someone who has done more of the low point items.

Anyway I vote for that, everything is worth an equal set amount of points which new content can be added on top of that in the same set amount.

There are 100+ achievement missing from the spreadsheet, since I'm currently at 542 and I know I'm missing a few dozens at least.

You are absolutely right, I compared notes with some of the longer lists, and I can estimate upwards of 650+ achievements possible in a single playthrough (assuming some you cannot attain, in the rank 1-20 city-state story missions).

This may be a large enough factor to make the set value different than my suggested 100-per-achievement, but I still personally think it is a nice round number for the action. Plus, its not like the cap will stay rank 50 forever, so that will begin growing again, as well. Especially when they add entirely new classes into the mix, as they have been hinting for quite some time.

I removed the rank up achievements for each class.

I still see some, but only at 5 rank increments like r40, r45, etc.

edit: Although I do not see why it would matter to remove those achievements at all. Like when you hit rank 45 leatherworker you get 2 achievements- one for the rank, and one for the "supplement" ability you earn upon ranking up 45. Achievements are forever tied in with rank, so there isn't a necessity to omit automatic ones. You are just making your job that much more time consuming, sorting through the acceptables and unacceptables.

I thought I had to add something to this discussion, as I agree with the general way this is heading.

What about achievements that are made impossible to earn? Particularly temporary achievements tied in with festival events or even the current invasion-based events?

One can always assume that the festivals will be available next year, but will the invasion events? This game is changing, and some achievements may be made unobtainable - or SE may opt to remove the achievement entirely if/when they implement their own achievement system in-game.

Just something to think about.

http://www.xivpads.com

If you have not registered here, they have an interesting ranking system.

Its true that some achievements may not be accessible tomorrow that are today, but then again it is a factor of how thorough one can be.

For example: One achievement that used to be possible to get, which some people did get, was 100,000 gil from a single levequest. Since they have done 2 separate patches that both reduced the possible gil reward, this achievement is all but impossible to gain, given the current content. But it could be achievable again, so I do not see a reason why it should be omitted. Especially since, in my scenario, all achievements are tallied equally, the point difference would be miniscule in the larger scheme of things.


That they do, they have already factored achievements into their ranks. Their site has been growing in popularity specifically because of that.

Im excited!!! How soon can we expect ranking to reflect achievements, Ty so much for taking this step foward! <3

doesnt ranking every 5 levels count as an achievement via lodestone?

yes, I suppose its considered a rite of passage achievement.

It's an achievement in the database sure but I didn't plan on giving a score for it since it's already being counted in the form of SP gained. It's not more work, it will simply have a score of zero.

ah, understood then.

So, do we have an estimated time of completion for this recalculation?

Well I will come up with some scores, they can be adjusted later if needed. Then update the achievement point calculator to include the new scores. Shouldn't take too long, just depends on how much thought I put into the scores.

After the points are adjusted, I'm sure many will have questions and want to know the entire formula. I still need to include the ability to manually update lodestone history for registered users. Those are some extra things I anticipate.

Cant wait ! :)

To give you an update on the subject. I have found some bugs while assigning scores such as duplicate achievements or ones not assigned to a valid group. I need to correct these. If you want to chat with me on the subject, find me on Guildwork. http://guildwork.com/u/scragg

Thanks to those offering to help on Guildwork. I got a lot of good intel. I may contact whoever is online at any time. I have a list that I made as a reference and may eventually become an index for scores.

http://www.ffxivpro.com/achievements/list

I had to delete many rows of data because of duplicates. For example, SE added a comma in their numbers and screwed up my listing. We have a total of around 20,000,000 achievements earned. I have many new characters entering the database right now, so that is expected to grow.

i would like to bring this up again. I am tired of seeing the same people at the top of the ranks who just recently hit 50 in top jobs. Also, which of the SSs list how to achieve points in this current system? (or is that a proposed list?) Pads is doing very well because of the achievements effecting ranks.

http://www.ffxiah.com/forum/topic/25325/pro-rank-updated/

Placing this here in case someone searches.