A couple of thoughts about leaderboards. Leaderboards are most effective where you clearly can identify mechanics & stages of influence. Leaderboards are least effective where perks don't outweigh...
A couple of thoughts about leaderboards.
Leaderboards are most effective where you clearly can identify mechanics & stages of influence.
Leaderboards are least effective where perks don't outweigh the fatigue.
The frozen middle of a leaderboard are often not motivated by leaderboards. It primarily motivates the laggards to not be laggards and the leaders to retain leadership.
My personal experience with leaderboards is that I completely ignore them every time because the top positions are generally taken up by people who clearly able to give more to the task at hand...
My personal experience with leaderboards is that I completely ignore them every time because the top positions are generally taken up by people who clearly able to give more to the task at hand than is healthy. The scores at the top are often orders of magnitude greater than the median score.
This is the issue I run into in a rhythm game I play, Spin Rhythm XD. The global leaderboards are super boring, all visible places are just the max possible score for a given track. It's very hard...
This is the issue I run into in a rhythm game I play, Spin Rhythm XD. The global leaderboards are super boring, all visible places are just the max possible score for a given track. It's very hard to achieve, but very uninteresting. It's a large chunk of screen dedicated to documenting a single number. Like you say, it's effectively unachievable, there's 0 competitive aspect. There's a second leaderboard for just friends, and while I don't have any friends who play, their scores would actually have the potential to be competitive. In the PS2 era my family played a lot of DDR, and it was a lot of fun trying to top each others' scores.
A game whose leaderboards I do really like is Opus Magnum, it's an alchemy puzzle game. When you complete a level your solution is rated on speed, monetary cost, and physical size. Globally, the game only shows you curves and your place on them. Usually for each graph it's a bell-ish curve with a spike at the bottom end, and you can see how your friends' best solutions rate on each graph as well. This feels a lot better because you can see how you did compared to everyone, not just the very very best, and because that ceiling at the top is actually reasonably achievable. Even if I didn't have friends to compete with, it'd be fun to see if I could make the journey to the bottom of the bell curve.
In the novel Walkaway, a major plot point revolves around how leaderboards are not really helpful for a collaborative project. Those whom contribute the most already know they contribute the most....
In the novel Walkaway, a major plot point revolves around how leaderboards are not really helpful for a collaborative project.
Those whom contribute the most already know they contribute the most. You don't need points and recognition for the top nor shame for the bottom for something that should be cooperative and not competitive.
A couple of thoughts about leaderboards.
My personal experience with leaderboards is that I completely ignore them every time because the top positions are generally taken up by people who clearly able to give more to the task at hand than is healthy. The scores at the top are often orders of magnitude greater than the median score.
This is the issue I run into in a rhythm game I play, Spin Rhythm XD. The global leaderboards are super boring, all visible places are just the max possible score for a given track. It's very hard to achieve, but very uninteresting. It's a large chunk of screen dedicated to documenting a single number. Like you say, it's effectively unachievable, there's 0 competitive aspect. There's a second leaderboard for just friends, and while I don't have any friends who play, their scores would actually have the potential to be competitive. In the PS2 era my family played a lot of DDR, and it was a lot of fun trying to top each others' scores.
A game whose leaderboards I do really like is Opus Magnum, it's an alchemy puzzle game. When you complete a level your solution is rated on speed, monetary cost, and physical size. Globally, the game only shows you curves and your place on them. Usually for each graph it's a bell-ish curve with a spike at the bottom end, and you can see how your friends' best solutions rate on each graph as well. This feels a lot better because you can see how you did compared to everyone, not just the very very best, and because that ceiling at the top is actually reasonably achievable. Even if I didn't have friends to compete with, it'd be fun to see if I could make the journey to the bottom of the bell curve.
You are part of the frozen middle. Most of us are.
In the novel Walkaway, a major plot point revolves around how leaderboards are not really helpful for a collaborative project.
Those whom contribute the most already know they contribute the most. You don't need points and recognition for the top nor shame for the bottom for something that should be cooperative and not competitive.