Hello. I would consider weighting the relative value or number of points awarded for each task/action performed within the design. What matters is consistency, not how much points you provide. It ensures that points remain meaningful and keeps your learners engaged. However, I have not published it yet, but learners in my research have told me that they prefer 100 points for completing a learning task rather than 10. Additionally, learners stated that they would rather gain points than lose them. In other words, students were encouraged to begin with zero points and earn points for tasks completed rather than losing points for tasks they were unable to complete after beginning with 100 points.

You may consider looking to game design trends over the years, especially multiplayer games. For example Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, and Call of Duty post 4 all used an experience system for leveling, however they each had different values. Halo 3 would award 1-2 points of exp, Call of Duty 4 would award multiples of 10, and most COD games after would award multiples of 100.

I dig the paper. I must say, you may be the only person to properly document how people believe that awarding 1 or 0 point per task is too small of an award. I'm sure someone has already pointed out to you, many arcade games from the Pacman days never awarded points in the single digits. The games always rewarded by 10s, 100s, or 1000s of points even! So this is a nice formal verification of an informal hunch. I applaud you!

Unfortunately, from this point on, I only have hunches on fruitful directions. As I'm not sure if research exists out there on proper capping or uncapping of scores. Fortunately, game designers have provided plenty of evidence of how and why they score tasks the way they do. Let's look at the simplest example of games that relates to this topic: DDR.

DDR (Dance Dance Revolution) is a simple rhythm game that rewards players by stomping on the proper floor panels in sync with the music. The reason I pick out DDR as our study is that DDR games are insanely popular and have many spin offs revolving around its success. The game itself is incredibly simple and easy to learn and only has one reward: points. There are no other intrinsic rewards for players to achieve for this game other than it's point and scoring system. Let's review how the point system works.

1. The scores are completely uncapped. Although the levels/songs end on a finite timer, achieving the max score is only theoretical. I'll explain why that is in a bit.

2. If the players miss too many of the required dance inputs, the level ends prematurely. This is considered a game over or a failure to the game.

3. The point are awarded per dance input. The more the player is in sync with the beat, the more points are given. How this is calculated varies from game to game, but there is a theoretical "perfect" input players can achieve.

4. There is a combo meter that awards bonus points for players that can keep maintaining acceptable dance inputs. To incentivizes not missing a beat and only hitting every other input.

5. When the song is over, a rating is given based on the points achieved. It's important to note that when player makes it to the end of a song, the game considers the player successful. Regardless of the points awarded.

5-1. The rating system typically follows its own lettering system. It varies from game to game but mirrors real life grades. An example of the scoring system can be D, C, B, A, S, SS, SSS, X

6. With all these systems in place, a leaderboard is constructed of the best players with the highest scores.

In the first bullet, I mention that the score is uncapped. Because each song has a different number of dance inputs to perform, achieving perfect performance in each song will result in a different score each. Even though there is a theoretical max score you can achieve for each song, the number the max is, is arbitrary.

What does this mean for gamification? Well, if we were to follow with the design of DDR scoring, this could suggest:

1. Missing a certain number of assignments results in automatic failure. No matter how well a student is performing.

2. The final score to determine if a student grade isn't determined until after the number of graded assignments are finalized.

3. Extra points are nearly assumed based on how perfect a student is in their performance

4. Combo points are awarded based on the numbered of perfect assignments students bring in.

5. Students can perform beyond the A rank and become the best the class has ever seen.

But this is all just one way of understanding how the game design of DDR was implemented and evolved. Perhaps this inspires a new lead. Hopefully, I am helpful.

Hi,

regarding Points and the effects behind, I would highly recommend you to look after game design components. They are a crucial factor, as only the logic behind gaining points, rules, restriction etc are making them work. Regarding the design-thinking aspect i would recommend kapp (2012). I already did some research on points (see my publication which is a discussion on usage of points, levels and leaderboards in HE) and my thesis also uses for example points as some intervention to enhance participation. Only got great results so far and waiting for the dream to end ;)

If you feel like discussing it, feel free to text me.

Good luck!

Hello Dr Athanasios Mazarakis, based on my experience with online courses gamification [1,2], I suggest creating the total scale of winable points and then breaking up levels and missions meaningfully towards the top. I agree with Dr Murat Sumer that a higher total allows more flexibility in points awarding scenarios in case of partial completion of tasks.

[1] Mystakidis, S. (2020). Distance Education Gamification in Social Virtual Reality: A Case Study on Student Engagement. 11th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA 2020), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/IISA50023.2020.9284417

Conference Paper Distance Education Gamification in Social Virtual Reality: A...

[2] Mystakidis, S. (2022). Sustainable Engagement in Open and Distance Learning With Play and Games in Virtual Reality. In O. Bernardes, V. Amorim, & A. C. Moreira (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Gamification Dynamics and User Experience Design (pp. 409–424). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-4291-3.ch019

Chapter Sustainable Engagement in Open and Distance Learning With Pl...

Dear all,

Finally, the holidays begin, and I can, at last, devote myself to the answers I got to my question. Please forgive me for the delay. I will answer each reply individually. Unfortunately, ResearchGate does not have a direct reply function. However, I still hope that my approach will enhance the readability.

Murat Sumer

Dear Murat,

Many thanks for your answer, which was the first reply to this discussion. ;-) I agree that consistency and relative value are the most critical matters. I know these aspects, but that was not the point of my original question. However, I am very thankful that you own your students' information that they preferred 100 rather than 10 points. This is very interesting. However, your findings are not entirely reflected in our results, as 44 subjects preferred 10 points, whereas 13 subjects preferred 100. I wonder if all of your students would have replied the same way.

Nevertheless, I still ask myself if other numbers/points might have had even better results. How are the numbers/points perceived in a specific gamification context? I want to thank you anyway because the direction of the results looks pretty similar, so our results do not look too strange. Moreover, I appreciate that you shared your insights with us, and we will consider them for further study. Have a good time during the holidays!

Brendan Kelley

Dear Brendan,

Thank you for your reply. Indeed, when designing our study, we had most of the different games you mentioned in our minds. You are making an interesting observation. One could derive from this that the exact amount of points is not important. However, is it really the case? ;-) I guess we need a standardized study, including observations from very successful games. Thank you for pointing to the game aspects. Have a great Christmas, and again, thank you for sharing your observations in games!

Jonathon Rios

Dear Jonathon,

Wow, this was a really lengthy and, at the same time, exciting reply! Indeed, your hunches are very welcomed and can form a proper model for our research questions. Or at least they show that our research question is indeed a very tricky one. Your DDR (Dance Dance Revolution) examples are very appreciated. Actually, they could form another branch of research questions. So indeed, you inspire a new lead, and your text is helpful. Thank you for sharing these quite detailed examples, and I wish you a fantastic holiday time, great Christmas, and a happy and healthy new year!

Sabrina Sailer-Frank

Dear Sabrina,

I appreciate your answer to our research question. Indeed, I read your publication in the bwp@journal. It is well crafted and contributes to the improvement of fundamental gamification research. However, as I mentioned in my reply to Murat, awarding points' relative value and logic are the most critical matters. Nevertheless, we still do not get clues about how to start: Is 1 point ok? Or maybe 3,5 points? Or 100? Or maybe it does not even matter, and only the logic matters? So awarding 2,38 points are ok? ;-) Sounds like an academic question, but hey, we are in academia. :-D

Thank you for your proposal, and yes, I am interested in your results so far and hope the dream did not end yet. :-) I will contact you, and maybe we can chat in the new year. I am looking forward to it. In the meantime, have a great holiday season and enjoy Christmas with family and friends.

Stylianos Mystakidis

Dear Styliano,

I am grateful for providing insight based on online courses with gamification and providing links to your literature. I briefly looked at your IISA publication, which looked very appealing, and I can see that much work has been invested in creating this online course. Still, I have a question regarding the experience points awarded. By going through the paper, I wondered how you came up with the different values/points for XP. E.g., why did you choose 45-60 XP for the SWOT analysis task and not, e.g., 450-600 points? Or 90-120 XP?

Moreover, how did you come up with the other point values? For example, did you rely on your own experience or some other role models? I would be happy if you could discuss this further! I also wish you a wonderful holiday season and a happy new year! Ευτυχισμένο το νέο έτος! ;-)

I've got two answers: my personal experience as a gamification consultant throughout the years, and an answer provided by ChatGPT.

1) My perspective and hypothesis over the scale of points/scores is that they matter according to a series of factors:

— The player profile > Gamers are usually more used to bigger numbers, as games usually work with them more often, while for other people it may not matter that much

— Logical proportion of minimum and maximum scores > If the minimum score is 1000, and the gap between possible scores is also 1000, it makes no sense really to use 1k instead of just 1. This may take away the credibility of these scores. Bigger numbers should consider smaller gaps between scores, which makes it great for time-sensitive systems (i.e.: minimum score is 1000, each second you save is worth you an extra 5 points)

— The reason behind the scoring > If you have a leaderboard system, having bigger scores with smaller gaps can make the competition more interesting, as you're measuring player performance with more details and taking away this responsibility from the player. Meanwhile, if you have a limited number of tasks that grant you points, and these points can be traded for prizes or used to win tickets for a draw, we want to make it simple and easy to make mathematical operations, because here the player must understand clearly what to do and when to do to get closer to the milestones they're pursuing (here the player is measuring their own performance, not necessarily the system)

-----

2) Asking ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/) about scientific literature on Points/Scores, the answer I got was:

A) Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification." Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments, 9-15.

In this paper, the authors discuss how points and scores can be used as a way to motivate and engage players by providing feedback on their progress and performance. They argue that points and scores are an important element of gamification because they allow players to track their progress, set goals, and compete with others.

B) Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: A service marketing perspective. In Proceedings of the 16th international academic MindTrek conference (pp. 17-22). ACM.

This paper discusses how points and scores can be used as a way to encourage and reward desired behaviors in non-game contexts. The authors argue that points and scores can be effective in gamification because they provide a clear and measurable way for players to track their progress and see the results of their efforts.

C) Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? - A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3025-3034).

In this literature review, the authors discuss the effectiveness of using points and scores in gamification. They found that points and scores can be effective in increasing user engagement and motivation, but that their impact may depend on the context and the way they are used.

-----

3) Asking the bot again, now asking more specifically for studies on scales and amounts of scores/points, it provides again the articles A and C, but also provides a new literature:

D) Werbach, K. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Digital Press.

In this book, the author discusses the importance of scaling points and rewards in gamification. He suggests that points and rewards should be properly balanced to create a sense of progression and to motivate players to continue playing.

-----

Hope this helps!

Kevin Talarico

Dear Kevin,

Great to hear from you again! Moreover, thank you for sharing your personal experience. It is really appreciated. I can totally relate to your experience. Although your answer does not fully address my question, we can still benefit. Thank you very much!

Regarding ChatGPT, the answers proved to be rather superficial (as most answers from ChatGPT). All stated literature does not state exact values or numbers regarding points. It proves that ChatGPT just gives the illusion of being helpful. Nevertheless, I took the chance to do a small study by myself with ChatGPT.

I stated four times the following sentence: “Generate a gamification system for a health app, only using points and with three different levels. State exact point values.” These are the results:

1.)

Here is an example of a gamification system for a health app that uses points and has three different levels:

Beginner Level: Players at this level earn points for completing basic tasks, such as logging their daily steps or tracking their daily water intake. These tasks could be valued as follows:

Logging daily steps: 50 points

Tracking daily water intake: 25 points

Completing a daily workout: 100 points

Intermediate Level: Players at this level earn points for completing more challenging tasks, such as participating in group fitness challenges or tracking their daily nutrient intake. These tasks could be valued as follows:

Participating in a group fitness challenge: 250 points

Tracking daily nutrient intake: 50 points

Completing a weekly workout plan: 250 points

Advanced Level: Players at this level earn points for completing advanced tasks, such as participating in long-term fitness challenges or tracking their daily sleep patterns. These tasks could be valued as follows:

Participating in a long-term fitness challenge: 500 points

Tracking daily sleep patterns: 100 points

Completing a monthly workout plan: 500 points

In this system, points can be redeemed for a variety of rewards, such as discounts on fitness equipment or healthy meal delivery services. Players can also unlock special features or unlock access to premium content as they progress through the levels.

2.)

Here is an example of a gamification system for a health app that uses points and has three different levels:

Bronze level: Players at the bronze level will earn points for completing basic tasks related to their health, such as tracking their daily water intake or taking a daily walk. These tasks will be worth 10 points each.

Silver level: Players at the silver level will be able to earn points for completing more challenging tasks, such as participating in a group fitness class or trying a new healthy recipe. These tasks will be worth 20 points each.

Gold level: Players at the gold level will be able to earn points for completing even more challenging tasks, such as completing a marathon or participating in a week-long clean eating challenge. These tasks will be worth 30 points each.

Players will be able to progress to higher levels by earning a certain number of points. For example, players who earn 500 points might be able to advance from the bronze level to the silver level. The exact number of points required to advance will depend on the specific goals and context of the health app.

In addition to earning points for completing tasks, players will also be able to redeem their points for rewards, such as merchandise or discounts on health and fitness products. The value of these rewards will be based on the number of points that players have earned. For example, a t-shirt might cost 100 points, while a discount on a fitness tracker might cost 500 points.

3.)

Here is an example of a gamification system for a health app that uses points and has three different levels:

Level 1: In this level, players can earn points for completing basic health tasks, such as tracking their daily water intake, logging their daily meals, or completing a daily exercise routine. Points can be earned at the following rates:

Tracking daily water intake: 5 points per day

Logging daily meals: 10 points per day

Completing daily exercise routine: 15 points per day

Level 2: In this level, players can earn points for completing more advanced health tasks, such as participating in group fitness classes, completing a 30-day challenge, or tracking their sleep. Points can be earned at the following rates:

Participating in group fitness class: 25 points per class

Completing a 30-day challenge: 50 points per challenge

Tracking sleep: 10 points per day

Level 3: In this level, players can earn points for completing even more advanced health tasks, such as participating in a marathon, completing a nutrition course, or volunteering at a health fair. Points can be earned at the following rates:

Participating in a marathon: 100 points per marathon

Completing a nutrition course: 50 points per course

Volunteering at a health fair: 25 points per event

In this gamification system, players can progress through the levels by earning a certain number of points. For example, to reach level 2, players may need to earn a total of 500 points, while to reach level 3, they may need to earn a total of 1000 points. This system provides players with a clear set of goals and rewards them with points for achieving these goals, which can help to motivate them to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

4.)

Here is a potential gamification system for a health app that uses points to motivate and reward players:

Level 1:

Players earn 5 points for every 10 minutes of physical activity tracked on the app.

Players earn 10 points for completing a healthy recipe featured on the app.

Players earn 15 points for logging their daily water intake.

Level 2:

Players earn 10 points for every 10 minutes of physical activity tracked on the app.

Players earn 20 points for completing a healthy recipe featured on the app.

Players earn 30 points for logging their daily water intake.

Level 3:

Players earn 15 points for every 10 minutes of physical activity tracked on the app.

Players earn 30 points for completing a healthy recipe featured on the app.

Players earn 45 points for logging their daily water intake.

In this gamification system, players can progress through three levels by earning points through various healthy behaviors, such as engaging in physical activity, following healthy recipes, and staying hydrated. The value of points increases as players progress to higher levels, providing a sense of accomplishment and motivation to continue participating in healthy behaviors. The exact point values can be adjusted based on the goals of the gamification system and the desired level of difficulty.

People familiar with gamification can easily spot the problems (a marathon worth only 100 points, if a daily water intake gives 5 points or logging meals 10 points? Oh dear…). Still, the results show that the relations are more or less balanced and that the numbers are centered to 10 or 100 points, using additional increments of these numbers like 5 or 15 and 25 or 50. So even ChatGPT and its training favor some numbers more than others. Still, despite these results looking interesting at first sight, I am pretty sure they will fail in most practical settings. However, this is maybe something for another discussion. ChatGPT is fabulous for getting ideas but digging deep is something that ChatGPT can not (yet?) fulfill.

Hello Athanasios Mazarakis,

In the gamified postgraduate course in the publication mentioned previously, I conducted a top-down multi-dimensional analysis of learning tasks in terms of type, study-time, effort and level of difficulty/complexity. Based on the analysis' results, I determined the relative weight in points for each assignment / mission.

Regarding the maximum point total, I selected the order of magnitude that made sense in association with the total number of point-awarding learning experiences. In this context, I also took into account eventual semiotic links with familiar grade/point scale that could entail a tacit positive stimulus for students. I hope this helps.

Warm wishes for a peaceful new year,

PS.

Thanks to the insightful replies of all colleagues, this discussion thread has become quite rich and informative. Great work!