In particular, seeing time-based leaderboards dominated by unrealistically low times, usually in the sub-10 second region. This is why I generally look to outside-of-game leaderboards for speedruns, since they often separate glitchless and glitched runs.
It's always felt absurd that there isn't a good way to automatically exclude these obviously hacked scores, but I don't think I've ever seen a single leaderboard without them.
I've seen this first hand in the LittleBigPlanet series. You'll see the top leader board positions being dominated by grouped firsts with the maximum possible scores, often downright impossible without outside interference.
Shoutout to Mario Maker 2 for having multiple leader boards for different modes (with one of them even resetting at the start of each week) giving most players a chance at reaching #1 at some point. Shame it's always being taken by refreshing special spammers, but it's the thought that counts
I do think GSP has a good idea behind it even if I think the execution is lacking. A glass half full perspective leaderboard that says "You're better than x amount of people" rather than "you're still worse than x amount of people" could do a lot.
I don't know how it could be done BETTER in execution. This is quite literally the function in which the system is based on quite literally. Their is no improvement to be made in how it operates. It literally just is. Either you like it or you don't.
@@stormcutter59 Something that could've been executed slightly better imo would be that if you either get into or drop out of elite smash after a game with someone, you are disallowed from rematching them.
My tips for leaderboards as a designer who's managed to do some successful implementations: - If your leaderboard is worldwide and will have a lot of players, consider a cut-off point at a certain position. For instance, show only the top 1000 ranks, so that if the player is the 1 millionth ranked player, they won't know their exact rank (personally, I would write it down as "1000+" for anyone below the cut-off). This spares the player from the bad feeling of being behind a million other players, and maybe your server infrastructure will thank you, too. - Fragment leaderboards and make them timed. Lots of games have leaderboards in leagues, some with promotion and relegation. This is great because you'll be more driven to compete in a leaderboard with players of similar skill. Even if you don't have promotion and relegation, you can use some other measure to match players of similar skill (in-game level, ELO, etc.) - You can also do leaderboards for many other features or minigames, more than just a global rank for your core game. This gives players more opportunities to find something they're interested in competing in. Personally, I didn't really like GSP. It was a very vague number that didn't really tell me much. It didn't really push me to play more, because I didn't know what the limit is.
As a gamer I dislike these design decisions and have encountered them before. 1000+ does not let me gauge my own growth and timed leaderboards remove my successes that I wish to persist. I do not want to have to maintain my successes week after week.
One strategy I've heard for online matchmaking is for the range of skill difference to gradually increase as a player waits longer, so players closer in skill have higher odds of being paired against each other.
I liked the idea of Global Smash Power, and I like that Sakurai identified problems with leaderboards and came up with a solution. I won't say it's THE solution, but it's good that someone tried. Most games still do leaderboards the old way, but now leaderboards are reset so that one person doesn't sit at the top forever (whether by cheating or otherwise). The point about leaderboards being a source of eternal humiliation is sooooo true, and might be why people try to cheat their way to the top. It's probably why people shit talk you through voice chat, even when you beat them. They can't handle that feeling of humiliation. I think leaderboards as they are are no good. Sakurai came up with a solution. I'd like to see more attempts at different types of leaderboards that mitigate the drawbacks.
I always felt that the biggest issue with Competitive Ranking systems is that by design the ultimate outcome for any player is to "settle" at a certain position. The vast majority of players are never going to even come close to reaching the top spots, so even in a well-designed system you'll eventually hit a wall and never be able to progress past a certain rank. For a certain mindset this could be seen as the ultimate goal for your competitive journey, but most people won't see it that way. They'll feel like they'll still have the ability to progress further, and might be able to do so temporarily before sliding back down, but won't be able to accept that they've hit their peak (which ALL human beings will naturally have, and will naturally have their skill decay over time due to age and lack of practice) and will only end up becoming frustrated and angry and blame the system. This may be controversial, but I felt an ideal system would be one that continually rewards effort, even if the skill doesn't measure up. In most competitive systems, you receive more points for beating a strong opponent and less for defeating an evenly matched or weaker opponent. It's same for the points you lose if you are defeated. This creates a "one step forward, two steps back" feeling that is immensely depressing once you make to your "settled rank". Instead, I had an idea for a system where the points for winning would by default be significantly higher than the points that are taken away by losing games; so that it would take several losses in a row to offset the gains from a single win. This means even if you were struggling, as long as you kept playing and won *occasionally* you would still rank up, even if it was at a much slower rate, mimicking the sense of improvement that you should gain from effort and practice that everyone wants to have, and rewarding the tenacity of players who kept playing and not giving up. This means players could rank highly by either being that skilled, or by putting in enough time. Of course, this devalues high ranks somewhat, but I think it'll still be worth it. Not everyone would have the skill or patience to get a high rank, so it'd still be slightly exclusive to a small degree, and I feel the very top level could be reformatted to an "Elite Smash" style partitioned ranking system, where the requirements to rank up are much stricter. That way the people who are at the highest skill level still have a genuine ranking system to truly compete over and be proud of, and the people who aren't skilled enough to do well in the "Elite Ranking" could be satisfied that at least they made it that far. It'd be much easier to admit that you hit your ranked limit if you could say "Yeah, I can't seem to rank up anymore, but that's because I made it to the best of the best" and they could be proud of that.
Spectate mode for Smash definitely deserves an honorable mention. Although Players with similar GSP are matched up it shows that it comes down to skill and technique. I’ve seen a lot of players with much higher GSP lose to players who have half of their opponents.
When I was a kid, I was playing online Flash games made for kids using European/Franco-Belgian comic mascots, and the leaderboards there had scores which were way outside what a kid could reasonably do. They were so crushing in fact that the game makers (Spirou in that case) had to make an in-depth explanation for kids telling them essentially that people on top of the leaderboards had no life and that us kids should not imitate them just for brownie points or to flex on our own friends x) Now that I think about it, I am wondering if these leaderboards were also hacked... I don't think so, given scores/times were not "obviously unattainable", but still....
Neon white does 2 things epic with leaderboards: A separate board just for your friends who are a smaller and typically more attainable group to beat And it shows you how many ranks you go up the leaderboard every time you improve, which means you get a fun number to show your power without needing that number to be near the top
Usually, leaderboards use an "inverse ranking" system (such as Elo) and simply rank people based on their score; these scores are also used for matchmaking rather than rank. It sounds like what Mr. Sakurai calls into question is whether the leaderboard should be displayed or not--after all, one could simply publish a leaderboard ranking people by GSP, even though that's not how the system is supposed to work.
Leaderboards for games with a relatively small number of users are a LOT of fun! Many of the games featured on Playdate offer global leaderboards, and since there are only ~50-70k Playdate users in the world so far, it's conceivable to rank in the top 50 on many games.
I remember specifically experiencing this with some Duke Nukem 3D port for the Xbox 360. I got somewhere around number 6 or 7 worldwide time record on one of the levels. That tipped me off that there must have been an extremely low player base, but it was still neat to see.
It is a very good point that the negatives of leaderboards come down to mindset. I have never been under the illusion that I could achieve top worldwide scores, and always treated leaderboards as a metric for personal growth. And I've always felt this is the best way to approach it, because when you're on top, there is nothing left to achieve.
Interesting to hear why GSP was designed the way it is. I think Elite Smash needed some tuning. Especially if I didn’t play for a while, then I’d go on and maybe lose one or two. Then when I try ti rematch the person I lost to, I get kicked out because I lost Elite Smash and thousands of points for a close game. Then I’d win outside of Elite, want a rematch, and I’m kicked out because I’ve been promoted! I just want to play. Not ping pong between ranks.
I don't care for leaderboards, it can feel like a taunt saying "your enjoyment of this game isn't authentic. If it were, you'd be as good as these people, but you're weak and lack the dedication".
The world always being online causes some issues that will never truly be solved, but it's admirable that you're trying. In the 80s and 90s, there was always that one kid in any given area that was "the best" - and having that feeling that they are the best, even if it's not true, is something special. Now you not only have leaderboards within games themselves, but the issue of speedrunning becoming a popular thing, where you might be the fastest player you personally know at a given game, but you immediately get feedback that no, you're not the elite player you think you are, and that leaderboard only serves to benefit the elite just as the ones mentioned in this video. The internet, by design, has irrevocably ruined that feeling for many, and while it's not a perfect solution, I appreciate any attempts to remedy it such as GSP.
I do think the Quickplay design is nice in Ultimate, but I wish it had 2 more functions: 1) the ability to rematch someone but change characters while still in Quickplay and not an Arena (similar to Smash 4 For Glory rematching) 2) the ability to keep rematching people if they want even if one is in Elite Smash and the other isn’t. It’s always a bit sad when you enjoy rematching someone right around the Elite Smash level but then if one of you makes it in, it forces you both to not be able to keep fighting. Even if GSP temporarily stopped growing for the player in Elite, it would simply be fun to continue fighting for a few more rounds before they leave.
In hyper demon getting a new high score and seeing as your name flies by thousands of others before it settles into its spot is a feeling like no other
When I remade the arcade game Ponpoko I decided to include an online leader board. This is because the only way most people will be able to play the original today is through MAME, which just includes local bests. I wanted my remake to feel like a celebration of the game, and I thought that including an online leaderboard would install local competition like a standard arcade.
if I play online, I usually play non-ranked matches. Leaderboards are sometimes fun to look at though, just to marvel and wonder the top players and their skills. The closest to leaderboards I participate in is in games like Mario 35/Tetris 99/etc. when you have the immediate game rank you when you win/lose.
This might just be me and I've never really figured out why but online leaderboards and losing online has always felt more frustrating than going to a game arcade, being challenged by someone and losing.
i see what you mean. face to face at the arcade there's les external factors that can influence the win/loss...it's more or less "fair" and skill vs skill...whereas online has many factors plus it's worldwide. If you lose locally in the arcade, no big deal...lose to a leaderboard compromised of hundreds, if not thousands of players feels more frustrating, especially with things like lag battles, hackers/cheaters, etc. making the top 10.
The leaderboards in hotline miami are what keep me going to get full combos. Getting something insane like a 50x combo on release and seeing you in top 50 really is something
GSP kinda traumatized me thinking back lol. I think it's actually a neat system, but I remember how long it took me to get Elite Smash for every character. For some characters it was almost instant, but for others like Mewtwo, because I kept losing it was always so slow to build up that it took +50 matches at least
I don't think it's ethically right to force long-term incentives into a game that doesn't focus on them. For me, that creates pressure to keep playing even after I'm not having fun anymore. And the loss aversion means that even if I recognize it, it can be hard to quit. I was addicted to an MMO for 10 years because of similar issues. I wish I could have left more easily and played other games. No one game should try to monopolize people's time. Once it starts feeling like doing chores or homework, it's past the point of incentives. I wish I could have played more games instead. Imagine if whenever you ate spicy food, you saw a leaderboard of who was eating the SPICIEST food, and you were encouraged to reach the top. Obviously, there are some people who like that challenge, but they're already pursuing that. I don't want to feel pressured to eat Carolina Reapers some day whenever I eat something with jalapeños. I just want to enjoy my spicy meal.
Sakurai I'm not sure if you're aware of this but in Smash Brothers Ultimate, did you know that people host rooms where they don't fight at all, instead just playing around with the characters and jumping off eachothers heads, showing off different custom stages, and doing silly things like that? There is a great deal of expression possible in Smash Ultimate beyond just fighting and I think that's very cool. It's one of my favorite things in videogames and is something extremely rare and special I think. Thank you for that.
This is why i think Friend or Small Group leaderboards are better - it's a lot easier to compete when you're competing with someone close to you, although the issue still stands if there's a massive skill gap
I really like the idea of having leaderboards being locked behind a score or something like for a racing game you could have three characters with times and when you beat the best one leaderboards open for that race.
I wish the next Smash Bros. game would just have an unranked quickplay mode like Smash 4, since GSP disables character switching or random, and I really like both of them. I played For Glory a lot in Smash 4, but rarely played Ultimate online with my favorite online mode gone. I would prefer to be told my real rank and risk being humiliated than told I'm better than several million people. The number feels very vague so I don't feel motivation to improve, and people will constantly look up the maximum GSP to find their true ranking. I've played other games with rankings and I feel good with them.
I think it was in Pokken Tournament that listed your total wins and losses in your profile forever. Never tried the online specifically because of that because I was only okay at the game and didn't want the humiliation of getting stomped by a bunch of good players early on and then never being able to dig myself out of that hole.
I remember Pokemon Battle Revolution on the Wii getting tons of flack for not having leaderboards, but I still have fond memories of it as the first ever online play with randoms in a main Pokemon game, while I quit Black/White's random wi-fi within days due to its ranking system resulting in wall-to-wall ragequitters. I'm not qualified to speak on the subject as I don't "ladder" in any game, but I've also experienced some major matchmaking fails in my day (though one that still sticks with me: a team who destroyed me in Dawn of War 2 were nice enough to apologize for the "Trueskill mismatch" afterwards).
Mario Kart does leaderboards for their time trial. Instead of giving the player a hard number or rank, the placement is shown on a bell curve. It also picks the ghost around you *and* you can choose a specific one. The bellcurve lets you see if there is a big shortcut your missing and you can follow someone on the far side of the curve who found the shortcut.
As a non competitive person, I've never really understood the appeal of leaderboards. Which is fine - not every game needs to be for every person. But it's definitely nice when games have other goals to work towards as well. Smash at least has characters to unlock, for instance, even if I'd personally prefer a bit more to go on
One of the fundamental problems with leaderboards is they are exciting if you’re in contention for the top spot, otherwise they can feel demotivating. One idea I’ve seen is ranking players only among their friends; this way, it’s a much smaller pool, and much more attainable to claim the #1 spot. There’s also the idea of splitting players into different “ranks” and giving players the ability to “rank up” if they score in the upper 50% of a given rank at the end of a week, otherwise you go down in rank. The obvious downside is, eventually you reach your limit and end up oscillating between two ranks. Every 2nd week, you basically lose all motivation to try because you’re most likely going to go down in rank. This is the case in Fire Emblem Heroes, and it can be extra frustrating because your rank also determines what rewards you get at the end of a week. If you could just “stay” in a rank as long as you keep a decent score, it wouldn’t be as bad. And of course, only “live-service” games with the ability to reward players based on their placement can tie rewards into leaderboards. It’s certainly one way to do leaderboards “differently” but it clearly has its own issues to iron out.
Hacking in leaderboards reminds me of how my friend showed my that Hotline Miami 2 had rankings for how fast you completed a level, but they were completely unusable as they were flooded with 0 second runs.
personally, what happens to me with the Elite Smash system is that I stop using the character when I reach Elite because I'm afraid of being kicked out of it lol In that sense, I use the Elite Smash as some sort of achievement.
I feel like leaderboards, even when there is a #1 of 1000 can be aspirational, so Idk if I agree with smash's approach in general. I can see it being good for a very casual audience, and it is nice to just see a number get bigger rather than see a big number get smaller.
I don't know if sakurai reads these, but I feel like GSP is a very flawed system. I feel like it should reward improvement and sportsmanship, not just winning. I've had a lot of online matches where I'm really neck and neck with someone, having a really good an even fight, only to lose and the other person just leaves immediately because they know they might loose a rematch. There should be some reward for keep trying to beat one person until you do, and there should be a reward for letting someone trying to beat you.
This is hardly specific to GSP though, you also get people who drop out of regular leaderboard ranked matches for the exact same reason mentioned here.
Leaderboards really drove me to get good at Amplitude, the Harmonix rhythm game on PS4. To this day I'm in the double digits on one of those songs (thanks to the game never going to PC).
I much prefer the indirect competition of leaderboards like in the Arcade Archives example. I usually just care about beating my personal high score. Seeing my name go up the charts makes it extra satisfying. I only intentionally try to beat other players when I’m near the top and feel that it can be done within reason.
This is why I never bothered to become better at fighting games. Even if I were to become one of the elite through hard work and dedication, I'd have to maintain that ranking for who knows how long. Plus I could complete multiple games from my backlog in the same amount of time.
I think the best way a leader can be at it's best is the heavy removal of cheaters true we should approach leaderboards differently depending on the game But it'll do very little if cheaters and bad actors keep flooding the boards😒
Something Smash should have. I do not agree with the negatives. And the worst part about Smash online is that you can't play a person again if you get in or out of elite, I constantly get in and out of it and it's really annoying to have to re-enter and wait for another person when I had someone I was playing with. And sometimes I just can't find someone, it's easier to find people out of elite. For these reasons I'd rather stay out of elite all the time.
I think GSP would've been improved substantially by the addition of showing your true rank once you reach elite smash. These are the players who are serious about the game and trying to improve, and seeing a large number get slightly larger is a lot less satisfying than watching a small number get closer to 1. Players in the top spots are the ones who will naturally care most about rank, so obfuscating that information does more harm than good for them, even though GSP is a good system for casual players.
Finally some information where I don't just nod my head in agreement. I love your videos, but most of them aren't "new information" for me. More tech and techniques like this, please and thank you.
I believe a ranked matchmaker solves this issue in some ways. No matter what you do you are going to have people who take the game seriously and those who are casual. Having elite smash as a barrier makes it harder to get into competitive matches at lower levels because you get stuck in elo hell for a while until you get out. People have weird rulesets and terrible stages for competitive play. By having a ranked mode you can avoid this entirely. I’m surprised they didn’t implement this but I believe there is much more to the story than what he divulged here.
oh boy my favorite rant topic. first: Fire emblem Heros. I'm not that high on the raid leaderboard, and get overrun by the defences of other players sometimes without doing damage. and do I have to start with splatoon splatfests again? (at least they fixed big run.... or still try) the people I run into should go back to proficinal and stop bothering free for all players.
People who cheat to get ahead are admitting that they're not actually good at what they're doing. It's for this reason that I always oppose leaderboards and typically don't play games with them, because I don't cheat and have no idea how to measure how good I am because of those who do. Smash does it better by having the system it does. Thank you, Sakurai.
As a player who, I feel, is generally above average in games, but not amazing, and is moderately competitively driven, leaderboards never really do anything for me. You know that saying that you shouldn't compare yourself too much to others? Well, I think Leaderboards are kind of an embodiment of that. They're unfortunately great at generating a sense of inadequacy, and sometimes also... undesirable thoughts toward the folks sitting at the top. It's great bragging rights, but only for a select few. I get the reason many games use leaderboards, but... I dunno. Oh, also, leaderboards where scoring is continuously cumulative like in F-Zero 99, where your score will only go up as you play more... no. I'm not at all a fan of that. On the note of GSP, I think that one is not great, either, though that's more in the sense that it feels a bit hollow and arbitrary than necessarily evoking negative feelings. I appreciate the attempt to put a more inclusive spin on the leaderboard idea, though. I wonder if there may be more room for experimentation...
Id say that I pay less attention since it's more difficult to grasp a number that keeps getting bigger. For example of I don't play for a long time the number changes, since more players are competing. I stopped looking or aiming higher. What I like is when leaderboards take into account your country or region, since it's simpler to first aim for best in the region and then in the world! I was number 14 in Pokken wiiu for example, I don't remember the global ranking tho
@@Nekotaku_TVI mean, it's the first I've heard of it. 1, I don't have any friends who play the game or if they do it's not something we talk about. 2, I suck at the game. 3, when you don't have friends to play with and are bad enough at the game to make playing with strangers no fun, you don't generally play online much. And 4, I suck at the game
I feel like there could be much more to discuss here: - Leaderboards are usually only for the top 1% or even 0.1% of the playerbase. The most devoted. The ones who won't accept to be second to anyone. They won't be satisfied if you deny them the information who is the best. - The Power Score acts like a reverse Leader Board. You call out anyone who is low on Power. You give someone the title "worst player in the world". The system probably doesn't really work this way, but if it would act like advertised and no players would drop the game, there are always people who will have single digit Power Ratings. The only difference is that nobody else sees it. But THEY know, they are one of the worst smash players ever existed. - Skill gaps breaks more than just queue time. The rating updates mostly based on the rating of your opponent compared to yours. If you are a top 500 player, you can't push your rating because most of your opponents will be way below you and the game knows you will demolish them. However, if you lose, the punishment is usually way higher. In Splatoon 2, it was likely for the best players to get +1 on a victory and -40 on a loss. Even for such a popular game, its impossible to gather 8 players of the same skill level.
Given the number of players who might've played online a little, how many of those millions are people who don't play anymore or who hardly played at all?
Super Mario 3D Land has this streetpass feature of best time per level, i always tried to beat them, it was fun, then on Super Mario 3D World the feature was expanded to Miiverse Ghost Run, and for a while i was doing pretty well, until the Cat Peach thing started appearing and all the records were destroyed, i was really mad and i called the technique "cheating" at the time, i still can't do the trick and i don't want to, the game is pretty fun to play as it is... i haven't played the game on Switch, and people have complained the Wii U entry is too slow, yet the levels are built for the original speed, i feel like the game would be less fun, but again, i haven't played that version yet.
I remember the app game, Rayman Fiesta Run, having best times of 0 seconds leading the leaderboards which told me right there that people were cheating. If that happens then what's the point in even trying to play the game?
1:09 As a gamer that plays a game that deals with match making, this statement hits me harder than a blow to the stomach. 1:34 I totally relate to this! 2:27 Why do I relate to this guy so well!? Goodness,man!
The entirety of MHW PC leaderboards for Arena quests are just cheated in with clearance time of 1 second. And then people question why people don't want to play with/against PC players.
luckily, as most fighting games adopt rollback netcode, the distance between opponents can grow longer without a very noticible change in connection quality
My main problem with GSP is that the starting GSP is too high, so lower than starting GSP players are often better at the game than starting GSP players because they've probably played the game more.
I know im above average and wont ever reach even top 1000 in the world. Dont like rank anyway with bad server connections. Still impressed by the dedication.
Fun fact: About half the players of any given game perform worse than the average player. It's not a good idea to base player accomplishment solely on a rank on a leaderboard. This is part of the reason why some shitty mobile game ads infuriate me so much: They act as if just using a certain strategy or redeeming a few gift codes will get you a top rank. The average playerbase spends hundreds of hours labbing everything out and they have the audacity to claim that new players can overturn their efforts... effortlessly. The marketing is shameless.
While a leaderboard is good, to me, its just a number. Just because im #1 on the leaderboard (obviously not, but for the sake of argument), doesnt mean that im #1 in a local tournament
Speaking of EliteSmash, l think the system should kick some characters out of Elite if you play too little with them or if the rest of the world catches up so to speak. l have several characters in EliteSmash that l'm not particularly great with that got there by winning ~twice, and now l'm never touching them again, knowing full well that if l would they'd be kicked out of Elite immediately (since l'd most definitely lose). Forcing you to play with characters to keep them in Elite makes it less cluttered and might even be a fun reason to occassionally grind online smash (even with characters you'd normally never pick)
Leaderboards/ELO are OK for 1v1 games like Smash and Chess, but IMO they're absolutely awful for team-based games like Overwatch or League of Legends. In those games, the outcome of a match is determined partly by your own performance, but also partly by your teammates' performance---something you can't really control. This leads to players trying to exert what little control they have over their teammates, pushing them to use only the best characters, and heaping blame on them when the team loses. In their mind, they simply cannot let other players play their own way, because how others play directly impacts their own rank. You win as a team, but you get punished as an individual. I think most problems in those games can be traced directly back to their use of these ranking systems. They were designed for 1v1 matchups, but are being misused for team-based games
In the case of Japan, leaderboards were important in arcade game culture. 2DSTG and Rhythm game is basically a single-player game, but it has a score display so you can race with others.
![Do Competitive Games Have to Be Complex? [Game Essence]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ggw9xXbzig/mqdefault.jpg)
![Do Competitive Games Have to Be Complex? [Game Essence]](/img/tr.png)
![Kid Icarus: Uprising [Game Concepts]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p-uwRfckTs4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Storage Tips [Grab Bag]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3tpttuaYiPI/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Power of Suggestion [Work Ethic]](/img/n.gif)
Leaderboards
The Pro: I can flex on my friends
The Con: the rest of the world can flex on me
It’s always fun looking at an online leaderboard and seeing how prone the game is to hacking
In particular, seeing time-based leaderboards dominated by unrealistically low times, usually in the sub-10 second region. This is why I generally look to outside-of-game leaderboards for speedruns, since they often separate glitchless and glitched runs.
It's always felt absurd that there isn't a good way to automatically exclude these obviously hacked scores, but I don't think I've ever seen a single leaderboard without them.
@@Amins88worse case scenario is that the entire board is filled with them like if the top 50 are filled with them
In P2W games the whales pays the most to stay on top
I've seen this first hand in the LittleBigPlanet series. You'll see the top leader board positions being dominated by grouped firsts with the maximum possible scores, often downright impossible without outside interference.
Shoutout to Mario Maker 2 for having multiple leader boards for different modes (with one of them even resetting at the start of each week) giving most players a chance at reaching #1 at some point.
Shame it's always being taken by refreshing special spammers, but it's the thought that counts
Heck yeah!!
I do think GSP has a good idea behind it even if I think the execution is lacking. A glass half full perspective leaderboard that says "You're better than x amount of people" rather than "you're still worse than x amount of people" could do a lot.
It’s just the high score system Sakurai grew up on…
I don't know how it could be done BETTER in execution. This is quite literally the function in which the system is based on quite literally. Their is no improvement to be made in how it operates. It literally just is. Either you like it or you don't.
@@stormcutter59 Chess uses the Elo ranking system which is like GSP but better implemented.
@@stormcutter59 Something that could've been executed slightly better imo would be that if you either get into or drop out of elite smash after a game with someone, you are disallowed from rematching them.
My tips for leaderboards as a designer who's managed to do some successful implementations:
- If your leaderboard is worldwide and will have a lot of players, consider a cut-off point at a certain position. For instance, show only the top 1000 ranks, so that if the player is the 1 millionth ranked player, they won't know their exact rank (personally, I would write it down as "1000+" for anyone below the cut-off). This spares the player from the bad feeling of being behind a million other players, and maybe your server infrastructure will thank you, too.
- Fragment leaderboards and make them timed. Lots of games have leaderboards in leagues, some with promotion and relegation. This is great because you'll be more driven to compete in a leaderboard with players of similar skill. Even if you don't have promotion and relegation, you can use some other measure to match players of similar skill (in-game level, ELO, etc.)
- You can also do leaderboards for many other features or minigames, more than just a global rank for your core game. This gives players more opportunities to find something they're interested in competing in.
Personally, I didn't really like GSP. It was a very vague number that didn't really tell me much. It didn't really push me to play more, because I didn't know what the limit is.
As a gamer I dislike these design decisions and have encountered them before. 1000+ does not let me gauge my own growth and timed leaderboards remove my successes that I wish to persist. I do not want to have to maintain my successes week after week.
One strategy I've heard for online matchmaking is for the range of skill difference to gradually increase as a player waits longer, so players closer in skill have higher odds of being paired against each other.
I liked the idea of Global Smash Power, and I like that Sakurai identified problems with leaderboards and came up with a solution. I won't say it's THE solution, but it's good that someone tried. Most games still do leaderboards the old way, but now leaderboards are reset so that one person doesn't sit at the top forever (whether by cheating or otherwise).
The point about leaderboards being a source of eternal humiliation is sooooo true, and might be why people try to cheat their way to the top. It's probably why people shit talk you through voice chat, even when you beat them. They can't handle that feeling of humiliation.
I think leaderboards as they are are no good. Sakurai came up with a solution. I'd like to see more attempts at different types of leaderboards that mitigate the drawbacks.
I always felt that the biggest issue with Competitive Ranking systems is that by design the ultimate outcome for any player is to "settle" at a certain position. The vast majority of players are never going to even come close to reaching the top spots, so even in a well-designed system you'll eventually hit a wall and never be able to progress past a certain rank. For a certain mindset this could be seen as the ultimate goal for your competitive journey, but most people won't see it that way. They'll feel like they'll still have the ability to progress further, and might be able to do so temporarily before sliding back down, but won't be able to accept that they've hit their peak (which ALL human beings will naturally have, and will naturally have their skill decay over time due to age and lack of practice) and will only end up becoming frustrated and angry and blame the system.
This may be controversial, but I felt an ideal system would be one that continually rewards effort, even if the skill doesn't measure up. In most competitive systems, you receive more points for beating a strong opponent and less for defeating an evenly matched or weaker opponent. It's same for the points you lose if you are defeated. This creates a "one step forward, two steps back" feeling that is immensely depressing once you make to your "settled rank". Instead, I had an idea for a system where the points for winning would by default be significantly higher than the points that are taken away by losing games; so that it would take several losses in a row to offset the gains from a single win. This means even if you were struggling, as long as you kept playing and won *occasionally* you would still rank up, even if it was at a much slower rate, mimicking the sense of improvement that you should gain from effort and practice that everyone wants to have, and rewarding the tenacity of players who kept playing and not giving up. This means players could rank highly by either being that skilled, or by putting in enough time. Of course, this devalues high ranks somewhat, but I think it'll still be worth it. Not everyone would have the skill or patience to get a high rank, so it'd still be slightly exclusive to a small degree, and I feel the very top level could be reformatted to an "Elite Smash" style partitioned ranking system, where the requirements to rank up are much stricter. That way the people who are at the highest skill level still have a genuine ranking system to truly compete over and be proud of, and the people who aren't skilled enough to do well in the "Elite Ranking" could be satisfied that at least they made it that far. It'd be much easier to admit that you hit your ranked limit if you could say "Yeah, I can't seem to rank up anymore, but that's because I made it to the best of the best" and they could be proud of that.
Spectate mode for Smash definitely deserves an honorable mention. Although Players with similar GSP are matched up it shows that it comes down to skill and technique. I’ve seen a lot of players with much higher GSP lose to players who have half of their opponents.
When I was a kid, I was playing online Flash games made for kids using European/Franco-Belgian comic mascots, and the leaderboards there had scores which were way outside what a kid could reasonably do. They were so crushing in fact that the game makers (Spirou in that case) had to make an in-depth explanation for kids telling them essentially that people on top of the leaderboards had no life and that us kids should not imitate them just for brownie points or to flex on our own friends x)
Now that I think about it, I am wondering if these leaderboards were also hacked... I don't think so, given scores/times were not "obviously unattainable", but still....
Neon white does 2 things epic with leaderboards:
A separate board just for your friends who are a smaller and typically more attainable group to beat
And it shows you how many ranks you go up the leaderboard every time you improve, which means you get a fun number to show your power without needing that number to be near the top
That sounds like a really cool system that would work way better then what we have to deal with right now lol
don't all games have a separate "friends" leaderboard?
Mario Kart Wii also did these two things
Yea and you can even see all the hackers at the top lol
Usually, leaderboards use an "inverse ranking" system (such as Elo) and simply rank people based on their score; these scores are also used for matchmaking rather than rank. It sounds like what Mr. Sakurai calls into question is whether the leaderboard should be displayed or not--after all, one could simply publish a leaderboard ranking people by GSP, even though that's not how the system is supposed to work.
Leaderboards for games with a relatively small number of users are a LOT of fun! Many of the games featured on Playdate offer global leaderboards, and since there are only ~50-70k Playdate users in the world so far, it's conceivable to rank in the top 50 on many games.
I remember specifically experiencing this with some Duke Nukem 3D port for the Xbox 360. I got somewhere around number 6 or 7 worldwide time record on one of the levels. That tipped me off that there must have been an extremely low player base, but it was still neat to see.
It is a very good point that the negatives of leaderboards come down to mindset. I have never been under the illusion that I could achieve top worldwide scores, and always treated leaderboards as a metric for personal growth. And I've always felt this is the best way to approach it, because when you're on top, there is nothing left to achieve.
Interesting to hear why GSP was designed the way it is. I think Elite Smash needed some tuning. Especially if I didn’t play for a while, then I’d go on and maybe lose one or two. Then when I try ti rematch the person I lost to, I get kicked out because I lost Elite Smash and thousands of points for a close game. Then I’d win outside of Elite, want a rematch, and I’m kicked out because I’ve been promoted! I just want to play. Not ping pong between ranks.
I don't care for leaderboards, it can feel like a taunt saying "your enjoyment of this game isn't authentic. If it were, you'd be as good as these people, but you're weak and lack the dedication".
The world always being online causes some issues that will never truly be solved, but it's admirable that you're trying.
In the 80s and 90s, there was always that one kid in any given area that was "the best" - and having that feeling that they are the best, even if it's not true, is something special. Now you not only have leaderboards within games themselves, but the issue of speedrunning becoming a popular thing, where you might be the fastest player you personally know at a given game, but you immediately get feedback that no, you're not the elite player you think you are, and that leaderboard only serves to benefit the elite just as the ones mentioned in this video. The internet, by design, has irrevocably ruined that feeling for many, and while it's not a perfect solution, I appreciate any attempts to remedy it such as GSP.
I do think the Quickplay design is nice in Ultimate, but I wish it had 2 more functions:
1) the ability to rematch someone but change characters while still in Quickplay and not an Arena (similar to Smash 4 For Glory rematching)
2) the ability to keep rematching people if they want even if one is in Elite Smash and the other isn’t. It’s always a bit sad when you enjoy rematching someone right around the Elite Smash level but then if one of you makes it in, it forces you both to not be able to keep fighting. Even if GSP temporarily stopped growing for the player in Elite, it would simply be fun to continue fighting for a few more rounds before they leave.
In hyper demon getting a new high score and seeing as your name flies by thousands of others before it settles into its spot is a feeling like no other
"Now I am motivated"-vergil
Leaderboard has pros and cons regardless so whatever or however you make it, there will always be those. But thanks for sharing this Mr Sakurai.
When I remade the arcade game Ponpoko I decided to include an online leader board. This is because the only way most people will be able to play the original today is through MAME, which just includes local bests. I wanted my remake to feel like a celebration of the game, and I thought that including an online leaderboard would install local competition like a standard arcade.
... Literally I just begun making a scoreboard two hours before this video.
if I play online, I usually play non-ranked matches. Leaderboards are sometimes fun to look at though, just to marvel and wonder the top players and their skills. The closest to leaderboards I participate in is in games like Mario 35/Tetris 99/etc. when you have the immediate game rank you when you win/lose.
RIP Mario 35.
Right on the money with this, leaderboards I feel can be discouraging for many, but it serves its purpose well as being something to strive for ^^
This might just be me and I've never really figured out why but online leaderboards and losing online has always felt more frustrating than going to a game arcade, being challenged by someone and losing.
i see what you mean. face to face at the arcade there's les external factors that can influence the win/loss...it's more or less "fair" and skill vs skill...whereas online has many factors plus it's worldwide. If you lose locally in the arcade, no big deal...lose to a leaderboard compromised of hundreds, if not thousands of players feels more frustrating, especially with things like lag battles, hackers/cheaters, etc. making the top 10.
We tend to demonify our opponents when they are anonymous especially when we can’t see or talk to them.
Pros : it's motivating
Cons : You need a decent online mode
Pro: you are a good developer and know how to make a good online system
Con: you work at Nintendo with their 1984 network system
Pro: You are making one of the biggest crossover fighting games ever made
Con: Bandai Namco is taking care of the online mode 💀
Cons: pray that your ISP doesn't crush any hope of playing online
The leaderboards in hotline miami are what keep me going to get full combos. Getting something insane like a 50x combo on release and seeing you in top 50 really is something
I was once matched with someone the exact same GSP level as mine. It was really weird, we even chose the same character, no joke.
it might be you from an another timeline, who knows
GSP kinda traumatized me thinking back lol.
I think it's actually a neat system, but I remember how long it took me to get Elite Smash for every character. For some characters it was almost instant, but for others like Mewtwo, because I kept losing it was always so slow to build up that it took +50 matches at least
I don't think it's ethically right to force long-term incentives into a game that doesn't focus on them. For me, that creates pressure to keep playing even after I'm not having fun anymore. And the loss aversion means that even if I recognize it, it can be hard to quit.
I was addicted to an MMO for 10 years because of similar issues. I wish I could have left more easily and played other games. No one game should try to monopolize people's time. Once it starts feeling like doing chores or homework, it's past the point of incentives. I wish I could have played more games instead.
Imagine if whenever you ate spicy food, you saw a leaderboard of who was eating the SPICIEST food, and you were encouraged to reach the top. Obviously, there are some people who like that challenge, but they're already pursuing that. I don't want to feel pressured to eat Carolina Reapers some day whenever I eat something with jalapeños. I just want to enjoy my spicy meal.
I agree with this. Nowadays I prefer games that have a time limit to them and physically can't consume more than a certain amount of time.
Don't blame your personal lack of character on game-developers. Perhabs you should pursue powerlifting, you'd be the strongest mf in town.
Sakurai I'm not sure if you're aware of this but in Smash Brothers Ultimate, did you know that people host rooms where they don't fight at all, instead just playing around with the characters and jumping off eachothers heads, showing off different custom stages, and doing silly things like that? There is a great deal of expression possible in Smash Ultimate beyond just fighting and I think that's very cool. It's one of my favorite things in videogames and is something extremely rare and special I think. Thank you for that.
Pretty interesting discussion. I've had some of these thoughts as well, but the insight onto GSP was cool
I wasn't expecting that level of despair here.
This is why i think Friend or Small Group leaderboards are better - it's a lot easier to compete when you're competing with someone close to you, although the issue still stands if there's a massive skill gap
I really like the idea of having leaderboards being locked behind a score or something like for a racing game you could have three characters with times and when you beat the best one leaderboards open for that race.
I wish the next Smash Bros. game would just have an unranked quickplay mode like Smash 4, since GSP disables character switching or random, and I really like both of them. I played For Glory a lot in Smash 4, but rarely played Ultimate online with my favorite online mode gone.
I would prefer to be told my real rank and risk being humiliated than told I'm better than several million people. The number feels very vague so I don't feel motivation to improve, and people will constantly look up the maximum GSP to find their true ranking. I've played other games with rankings and I feel good with them.
SAKURAI these YOUR Game Creator Videos gives ME a MOTIVATION and HELPING a MUCH trying creating my own Videogame.😊❤
That's definitely an excellent topic that sakurai brings up on.
Awesome job, Mr. Kirby’s dad!
I think it was in Pokken Tournament that listed your total wins and losses in your profile forever. Never tried the online specifically because of that because I was only okay at the game and didn't want the humiliation of getting stomped by a bunch of good players early on and then never being able to dig myself out of that hole.
I remember Pokemon Battle Revolution on the Wii getting tons of flack for not having leaderboards, but I still have fond memories of it as the first ever online play with randoms in a main Pokemon game, while I quit Black/White's random wi-fi within days due to its ranking system resulting in wall-to-wall ragequitters. I'm not qualified to speak on the subject as I don't "ladder" in any game, but I've also experienced some major matchmaking fails in my day (though one that still sticks with me: a team who destroyed me in Dawn of War 2 were nice enough to apologize for the "Trueskill mismatch" afterwards).
Mario Kart does leaderboards for their time trial.
Instead of giving the player a hard number or rank, the placement is shown on a bell curve. It also picks the ghost around you *and* you can choose a specific one.
The bellcurve lets you see if there is a big shortcut your missing and you can follow someone on the far side of the curve who found the shortcut.
Thanks for sharing
As someone who plays CODm regularly, somehow this video is relatable...
As a non competitive person, I've never really understood the appeal of leaderboards. Which is fine - not every game needs to be for every person. But it's definitely nice when games have other goals to work towards as well. Smash at least has characters to unlock, for instance, even if I'd personally prefer a bit more to go on
One of the fundamental problems with leaderboards is they are exciting if you’re in contention for the top spot, otherwise they can feel demotivating.
One idea I’ve seen is ranking players only among their friends; this way, it’s a much smaller pool, and much more attainable to claim the #1 spot.
There’s also the idea of splitting players into different “ranks” and giving players the ability to “rank up” if they score in the upper 50% of a given rank at the end of a week, otherwise you go down in rank. The obvious downside is, eventually you reach your limit and end up oscillating between two ranks. Every 2nd week, you basically lose all motivation to try because you’re most likely going to go down in rank.
This is the case in Fire Emblem Heroes, and it can be extra frustrating because your rank also determines what rewards you get at the end of a week. If you could just “stay” in a rank as long as you keep a decent score, it wouldn’t be as bad. And of course, only “live-service” games with the ability to reward players based on their placement can tie rewards into leaderboards. It’s certainly one way to do leaderboards “differently” but it clearly has its own issues to iron out.
Hacking in leaderboards reminds me of how my friend showed my that Hotline Miami 2 had rankings for how fast you completed a level, but they were completely unusable as they were flooded with 0 second runs.
My GSP is low and I intend on keeping it that way 😂
personally, what happens to me with the Elite Smash system is that I stop using the character when I reach Elite because I'm afraid of being kicked out of it lol
In that sense, I use the Elite Smash as some sort of achievement.
I feel like leaderboards, even when there is a #1 of 1000 can be aspirational, so Idk if I agree with smash's approach in general. I can see it being good for a very casual audience, and it is nice to just see a number get bigger rather than see a big number get smaller.
I don't know if sakurai reads these, but I feel like GSP is a very flawed system. I feel like it should reward improvement and sportsmanship, not just winning. I've had a lot of online matches where I'm really neck and neck with someone, having a really good an even fight, only to lose and the other person just leaves immediately because they know they might loose a rematch. There should be some reward for keep trying to beat one person until you do, and there should be a reward for letting someone trying to beat you.
This is hardly specific to GSP though, you also get people who drop out of regular leaderboard ranked matches for the exact same reason mentioned here.
Happens in online chess too.
Leaderboards really drove me to get good at Amplitude, the Harmonix rhythm game on PS4. To this day I'm in the double digits on one of those songs (thanks to the game never going to PC).
I much prefer the indirect competition of leaderboards like in the Arcade Archives example.
I usually just care about beating my personal high score. Seeing my name go up the charts makes it extra satisfying.
I only intentionally try to beat other players when I’m near the top and feel that it can be done within reason.
This is why I never bothered to become better at fighting games.
Even if I were to become one of the elite through hard work and dedication, I'd have to maintain that ranking for who knows how long. Plus I could complete multiple games from my backlog in the same amount of time.
I think the best way a leader can be at it's best is the heavy removal of cheaters true we should approach leaderboards differently depending on the game
But it'll do very little if cheaters and bad actors keep flooding the boards😒
Something Smash should have. I do not agree with the negatives. And the worst part about Smash online is that you can't play a person again if you get in or out of elite, I constantly get in and out of it and it's really annoying to have to re-enter and wait for another person when I had someone I was playing with. And sometimes I just can't find someone, it's easier to find people out of elite. For these reasons I'd rather stay out of elite all the time.
I think GSP would've been improved substantially by the addition of showing your true rank once you reach elite smash. These are the players who are serious about the game and trying to improve, and seeing a large number get slightly larger is a lot less satisfying than watching a small number get closer to 1. Players in the top spots are the ones who will naturally care most about rank, so obfuscating that information does more harm than good for them, even though GSP is a good system for casual players.
Finally some information where I don't just nod my head in agreement. I love your videos, but most of them aren't "new information" for me. More tech and techniques like this, please and thank you.
GSP numbers always felt arbitrary and meaningless to me. They never really left me feeling accomplished no mater how high they got.
They also constantly change, though has been slowing down because of less people starting to play.
I believe a ranked matchmaker solves this issue in some ways. No matter what you do you are going to have people who take the game seriously and those who are casual. Having elite smash as a barrier makes it harder to get into competitive matches at lower levels because you get stuck in elo hell for a while until you get out. People have weird rulesets and terrible stages for competitive play. By having a ranked mode you can avoid this entirely. I’m surprised they didn’t implement this but I believe there is much more to the story than what he divulged here.
I have never in my life felt motivated by a leaderboard, so how smash does it is pretty neat
very interesting, thanks sakurai!
oh boy my favorite rant topic. first: Fire emblem Heros. I'm not that high on the raid leaderboard, and get overrun by the defences of other players sometimes without doing damage. and do I have to start with splatoon splatfests again? (at least they fixed big run.... or still try) the people I run into should go back to proficinal and stop bothering free for all players.
Dota 2 does a good leaderboarding system in the sense that only people in Inmortal rank(the elite) have a Top Leaderboard counter.
Currently my GSP as Mii Swordfighter in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is roughly 5.6 million.
Sakurai: Think outside the box for ranking
Dota 2 Smurfs: I got you fam
People who cheat to get ahead are admitting that they're not actually good at what they're doing. It's for this reason that I always oppose leaderboards and typically don't play games with them, because I don't cheat and have no idea how to measure how good I am because of those who do. Smash does it better by having the system it does. Thank you, Sakurai.
As a player who, I feel, is generally above average in games, but not amazing, and is moderately competitively driven, leaderboards never really do anything for me. You know that saying that you shouldn't compare yourself too much to others? Well, I think Leaderboards are kind of an embodiment of that. They're unfortunately great at generating a sense of inadequacy, and sometimes also... undesirable thoughts toward the folks sitting at the top. It's great bragging rights, but only for a select few. I get the reason many games use leaderboards, but... I dunno.
Oh, also, leaderboards where scoring is continuously cumulative like in F-Zero 99, where your score will only go up as you play more... no. I'm not at all a fan of that.
On the note of GSP, I think that one is not great, either, though that's more in the sense that it feels a bit hollow and arbitrary than necessarily evoking negative feelings. I appreciate the attempt to put a more inclusive spin on the leaderboard idea, though. I wonder if there may be more room for experimentation...
Id say that I pay less attention since it's more difficult to grasp a number that keeps getting bigger. For example of I don't play for a long time the number changes, since more players are competing. I stopped looking or aiming higher.
What I like is when leaderboards take into account your country or region, since it's simpler to first aim for best in the region and then in the world! I was number 14 in Pokken wiiu for example, I don't remember the global ranking tho
I didn't know Elite Smash existed... So there's my skill level 😅
How did you not know?
@@Nekotaku_TVI mean, it's the first I've heard of it. 1, I don't have any friends who play the game or if they do it's not something we talk about. 2, I suck at the game. 3, when you don't have friends to play with and are bad enough at the game to make playing with strangers no fun, you don't generally play online much. And 4, I suck at the game
I feel like there could be much more to discuss here:
- Leaderboards are usually only for the top 1% or even 0.1% of the playerbase. The most devoted. The ones who won't accept to be second to anyone. They won't be satisfied if you deny them the information who is the best.
- The Power Score acts like a reverse Leader Board. You call out anyone who is low on Power. You give someone the title "worst player in the world". The system probably doesn't really work this way, but if it would act like advertised and no players would drop the game, there are always people who will have single digit Power Ratings. The only difference is that nobody else sees it. But THEY know, they are one of the worst smash players ever existed.
- Skill gaps breaks more than just queue time. The rating updates mostly based on the rating of your opponent compared to yours. If you are a top 500 player, you can't push your rating because most of your opponents will be way below you and the game knows you will demolish them. However, if you lose, the punishment is usually way higher. In Splatoon 2, it was likely for the best players to get +1 on a victory and -40 on a loss. Even for such a popular game, its impossible to gather 8 players of the same skill level.
I’d love to see a video on accessibility features, honestly.
He already made one! It's titled "Modern Quality of Life Features [UI]"
@@gamedev_zombie oh wow! Thank you for the info!
Given the number of players who might've played online a little, how many of those millions are people who don't play anymore or who hardly played at all?
This video seems incomplete without mentioning the Elo rating system which is used in competitive board games, especially chess.
Super Mario 3D Land has this streetpass feature of best time per level, i always tried to beat them, it was fun, then on Super Mario 3D World the feature was expanded to Miiverse Ghost Run, and for a while i was doing pretty well, until the Cat Peach thing started appearing and all the records were destroyed, i was really mad and i called the technique "cheating" at the time, i still can't do the trick and i don't want to, the game is pretty fun to play as it is... i haven't played the game on Switch, and people have complained the Wii U entry is too slow, yet the levels are built for the original speed, i feel like the game would be less fun, but again, i haven't played that version yet.
I remember the app game, Rayman Fiesta Run, having best times of 0 seconds leading the leaderboards which told me right there that people were cheating. If that happens then what's the point in even trying to play the game?
1:09 As a gamer that plays a game that deals with match making, this statement hits me harder than a blow to the stomach.
1:34 I totally relate to this!
2:27 Why do I relate to this guy so well!? Goodness,man!
So what is roster GSP?
I've always liked GSP 😊
The entirety of MHW PC leaderboards for Arena quests are just cheated in with clearance time of 1 second. And then people question why people don't want to play with/against PC players.
I like leaderboards!
2:30 As always happened in Kongregate leaderboards.
luckily, as most fighting games adopt rollback netcode, the distance between opponents can grow longer without a very noticible change in connection quality
@@k.pliskin3214 YU ZU
Speedrunning community, take note!
I think this video only lacked the talk about division and league (silver gold plat etc. etc.). A great video as usual tho
Sakurai touching on the subject of leaderboards means you know that Duolingo's programmers are about to have a very bad day...
My main problem with GSP is that the starting GSP is too high, so lower than starting GSP players are often better at the game than starting GSP players because they've probably played the game more.
Local leaderboards are always a great way to flex and compete against your friends though. It also shows significantly less cheaters and exploiters.
I know im above average and wont ever reach even top 1000 in the world. Dont like rank anyway with bad server connections. Still impressed by the dedication.
I never get any higher ranks in any Leaderboards
Fun fact: About half the players of any given game perform worse than the average player. It's not a good idea to base player accomplishment solely on a rank on a leaderboard.
This is part of the reason why some shitty mobile game ads infuriate me so much: They act as if just using a certain strategy or redeeming a few gift codes will get you a top rank. The average playerbase spends hundreds of hours labbing everything out and they have the audacity to claim that new players can overturn their efforts... effortlessly. The marketing is shameless.
While a leaderboard is good, to me, its just a number. Just because im #1 on the leaderboard (obviously not, but for the sake of argument), doesnt mean that im #1 in a local tournament
There should be a way to prevent leaderboards from being hacked as well
Speaking of EliteSmash, l think the system should kick some characters out of Elite if you play too little with them or if the rest of the world catches up so to speak. l have several characters in EliteSmash that l'm not particularly great with that got there by winning ~twice, and now l'm never touching them again, knowing full well that if l would they'd be kicked out of Elite immediately (since l'd most definitely lose). Forcing you to play with characters to keep them in Elite makes it less cluttered and might even be a fun reason to occassionally grind online smash (even with characters you'd normally never pick)
The Internet is where you learn you're really bad at games you thought you liked.
GLOBAL SMASH POWER GOES OVER 5000????
Hahahaha. Where have you been?
one big downside to leaderboards is adding a online component to otherwise offline games.
Leaderboards/ELO are OK for 1v1 games like Smash and Chess, but IMO they're absolutely awful for team-based games like Overwatch or League of Legends. In those games, the outcome of a match is determined partly by your own performance, but also partly by your teammates' performance---something you can't really control. This leads to players trying to exert what little control they have over their teammates, pushing them to use only the best characters, and heaping blame on them when the team loses. In their mind, they simply cannot let other players play their own way, because how others play directly impacts their own rank. You win as a team, but you get punished as an individual.
I think most problems in those games can be traced directly back to their use of these ranking systems. They were designed for 1v1 matchups, but are being misused for team-based games
おはよ！
Do people actually check the leaderboards in offline games ?
Leaderboards were and continue to be a major part of arcade game culture, for one
In the case of Japan, leaderboards were important in arcade game culture.
2DSTG and Rhythm game is basically a single-player game, but it has a score display so you can race with others.