Under Debate: Badge 'Achievements' system (gamification) instead of fame points

[Wimpie]

Title: Badge 'Achievements' system (gamification) instead of fame points

Summary: See title
Details:
I am not sure it was ever proposed on this forum already. If it was, don't hesitate to link it here.

But instead of the fame points which have, over the years, grown quite static as nobody is really looking into the unknown fame points anymore, why not use a badge system that you unlock badges for certain achievements. I think I vaguely remember Delvin talking about something like this.

So just to hear you out what you guys think.

The system would replace (or not?) the fame point system. Known fame points could be transferred into 'badges' that you earned. Or we could start from scratch. Unknown fame points that were not discovered yet could remain hidden until you unlock them.
What I'm not certain about is unknown fame points that probably many of you already have but they were never identified as such. (Mostly referring to this wiki page [[Fame_Box]]).

A separate page linked to your family page, or directly on your family page you could then see all the badges one has already gathered instead of just a 'number of fame' and the possibility to track it on wiki (which not everyone does).

Examples of websites or apps that use badges from the top of my head (not sure they are known to you): Tripadvisor, Swarm,..

Benefits: It would add more intrigue/interest in achieving such points. Might not add something new but it would renew the interest in gathering fame points perhaps. Also I'd work with appealing visuals (badges).

Possible Downsides or Exploits: Not sure how to handle unknown fame points which have already been attained by people (we would have to make them known),...

Let me know what you think.

[Zakky]

I agree. Forget about fame points. Achievements are straight forward and make more sense.

[Eduardo Almighty]

Last year I receiveid a badge myself from the XBOX. It seem I was among the 1% who conquered more achievements in 2016... like I always pursuied to be among the most famous families in BM.

Put an achievment in front of me and I will want to take it!

[CryptCypher]

Achievements, I say!

[Anaris]

Already planned, just not trivial to implement.

[Chenier]

Hmmm, I don't really see anything wrong with fame as it is.

Badges makes me more think of those realms that used to create special distinctions for nobles which achieved certain feats, for example wounding an enemy in battle. I would honestly much rather see an IG mechanic to reward players with such badges than see an overhaul to the fame system.

[Anaris]

I certainly haven't made any decision yet as to whether a public achievements system would replace or supplement the existing fame system.

[Zakky]

I think the problem of the fame system is it isn't very clear. It isn't design to give you any sense of accomplishment. It is there to tell you you did something and you gained points for those actions. I never understood Tom's idea of making people find out stuff to be honest especially regarding stuff like fame.

The achievement system is well known. It is clear on how to get the achievements and sometimes tells you how many managed to get the achievement. It is easier to understand and straightforward.

I can't really think of any advantages of the fame system which the achievement system does not have. The fame system just feels poor imitation(or less developed version) of the achievement system and should be replaced. It doesn't really add much to the game. You can't keep track of any of your deeds in the current fame system so you as a player has no idea what you did to earn those points. There are of course known points but if you haven't been tracking your actions, it is pretty hard to find out where you got your points.

[Eduardo Almighty]

I never understood Tom's idea of making people find out stuff to be honest especially regarding stuff like fame.

It's like to say IC... "I'm a Serpentis, I'm very famous... for what!? Well... a lot of...... things."

Now, I always had a doubt... when you wound someone in the battlefield... it's up to your soldiers or that's you, the noble, wounding another noble? Or it's up to interpretation and/or mutual agreement (the last one always sound better, but still...).

[Vita`]

It's like to say IC... "I'm a Serpentis, I'm very famous... for what!? Well... a lot of...... things."

Now, I always had a doubt... when you wound someone in the battlefield... it's up to your soldiers or that's you, the noble, wounding another noble? Or it's up to interpretation and/or mutual agreement (the last one always sound better, but still...).

It's up to interpretation, but I think for melee units, most common interpretation has been noble vs noble combat. For ranged units wounding others, I think interpretations have been more evenly split between a noble and the unit wounding. Either way, as long as there is some mutual cooperation folks shouldn't care too much on this either way.

[Chenier]

It's up to interpretation, but I think for melee units, most common interpretation has been noble vs noble combat. For ranged units wounding others, I think interpretations have been more evenly split between a noble and the unit wounding. Either way, as long as there is some mutual cooperation folks shouldn't care too much on this either way.

Well, heroes are said to be distinguished by actually involving themselves in combat directly, unlike the rest.

That doesn't always seem very plausible, though.

[Eduardo Almighty]

I like the idea of my noble enganging in combat... after all, if I'm not wrong, he not train just for duels and you won some swordfight in battle. I never trained with Erik at the academies and he always had high swordfight because of his infantry and a lot of battles.

In my last RP I used a subterfuge... I did the RP from the POV of a Bard paid by the char to increase his fame after wound a Perdanese noble. He said OOC he was wounded by a soldier and not a noble, maybe because the description goes by "wounded by Stormwalkwers" instead of "wounded ny Ehrendill"... so, the "Bard thing" saved me a silly OOC discussion.

[Chenier]

I like the idea of my noble enganging in combat... after all, if I'm not wrong, he not train just for duels and you won some swordfight in battle. I never trained with Erik at the academies and he always had high swordfight because of his infantry and a lot of battles.

In my last RP I used a subterfuge... I did the RP from the POV of a Bard paid by the char to increase his fame after wound a Perdanese noble. He said OOC he was wounded by a soldier and not a noble, maybe because the description goes by "wounded by Stormwalkwers" instead of "wounded ny Ehrendill"... so, the "Bard thing" saved me a silly OOC discussion.

Yea, I do find it limiting to go with the interpretation of "only those who pick this specific subclass can participate directly in combat", especially when that subclass comes with a "you can die" and a "you can never change your mind and opt out" clause.

[Vita`]

You gain swordfighting and jousting skills in combat, you participate in combat. Debatable for ranged folks though, since they gain no skill but leadership. :P

[Anaris]

My interpretation has always been that while most nobles participate in combat, they are either surrounded and protected by their unit, or at its back. Thus, they only personally engage the enemy when the unit is fully embroiled in a melee.

Heroes, however, fight at the front of their unit, rallying them forward with their own courageâ€"and potentially paying a high price for it.