"Achievements/medals/badges/pavlovs dog buggery"

That's an interesting take, and probably true. It is however the sort of achievement I'm totally fine with, as the worst it can do is make a player play the game more (without changing the way they play).

you have to see it like that:
You can easily sort out players you don't want to have on your side by the choice of achievements they are are hunting for. See it as player ranking.

To be serious, I think when most of the people start achievement hunting (or what ever equivalent mechanic in the respective game) for the sake of achievement hunting it is usually a sign, that they have nothing better to do (aka the achievement system is (currently) the biggest motivational factor in the game). Which is usually more of a issue with the game than the players.
Concerning types of achievements, some will probably always support the wrong playing strategy, they probably should be avoided...
But even with the ones that are not that bad, there always be situations where they won't be the way to go. So if you want to cutout any kind of achievement, that someone might try to fulfil in the wrong moment - you end up with a very limited range. If that's what you want is a matter of personal taste.

True, but there are always people more motivated by shiny badges and high numbers on their profile, so their impact should be considered. Achievements should simply be designed as rewards, rather than goals. Achievements for X number of wins, finishing a campaign (obviously not applicable to PA), getting a good kill/loss ratio with units etc. are all good achievements, because they only encourage a good play style.

Hypothetically, would a "got into the top 10% of the ladder" be a good achievement?

It wouldn't be negative (that is, encourage bad play), but I wonder if such exclusive achievements are good or not. I haven't seen such an achievement in games I've played, and if I saw it I'd feel like I hadn't completed the game without getting the achievement, something that may be realistically impossible. It's also heavily weighted towards the people who play the game first.

Distractor - least kills but is there at almost every conflict.
this could be a positive or negative badge depending on your strategie

Annihilator - destroyed a planet.

Nemesis - attacking only one player

Armageddon - destroyed a planet with a enemy commander on it

overwatch - had unlocked more than 80% of the map

idea anyone...?

I'm going to hold you to this. And if I feel no change from playing a game from 2007, I will use this as the go-to response to the next batch of game developers who feel they can "do it right".

Distractor & Nemesis are the sorts of achievements which cause bad play. Annihilator and Armageddon are good though. Overwatch is a chore, not an achievement

So basically, any achievement for winning games is good, any in game achievements are bad. Achievements should be something you can only earn after a game, not while playing it.

I think achievements for beating certain people (developers, custom commanders, maybe people who have been in top 10 or top 100) are very fun - you get satisfaction from knowing it's there and you can show it off to your friends, but people have NO WAY of hunting for it, assuming the multiplayer system is random (and even if they do, then it'll just mean more people trying to beat high level players - no problem). On the other hand, these would piss off completionists no end, but I think that's probably a minority of the rts community.

Personally I'm not too bothered with achievements, if they weren't there at all I'd be perfectly happy. In Starcraft there's a stat that shows the highest league you've finished in, something alon those lines perhaps: 'highest ever reached on the ladder #4789'

I wasn't even talking about an achievement, but rather simple statistics. I love statistics and a few badges for them would be nice.
I really don't think there are many people who only play for such stats/achievement.
If the game is really good and the badges are just a little addition to it nobody should go crazy and "do nothing but build tanks". PA is totally different from the game described in the first post.
Also just don't play teamgames with idiots

Can you clarify what is bad about it?

But yes, it is weighted towards people who played first. As was the beta player badges in GPGNet, and the Pre-Season Hero achievement from those who pre-purchased MNC on the PC and got in the beta. While it is difficult to get into the top n-percent, it's never impossible to do so.

Hmm I did not think of that one, pretty effective and cheap way to measure indeed

Also I wanted to drop these:

Skinner box methods:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episod ... kinner-box

Achievements:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/achievements

Nothing other than it being hard to get. My view on achievements is they should all be realistically achievable by everyone, but that's just my preference.

Fair enough.

The internet just seems to remember bad things more clearly than the good things. It's better to learn from history than to forget it, right? An idea can be good, but copying it directly means taking all the flaws of the original.

Cheevos fall under the realm of shiny baubles. They're a nice distraction, and can entice a little OCD race no matter who you are. But they're not central to the game. There are a hundred ways to do it, so it's pretty much up to the devs to determine what is deserving of a shiny and what a shiny might be.

But that's not an achievement. That's a milestone.

I'm quite aware of that, but they could just make them invisible. No more "you equipped your first item!" achievements.

How is something that everyone can do an "achievement"? That's like giving someone a badge for not being a complete failure.

If you're going to throw out achievements, at least let players work for it! Make it something worth having, not something everyone will get after playing for a days (or weeks).


Also, viral badges ("beat a player who already has this badge") are really cool. They will slowly spread through the playerbase until everyone has them, but until they spread that far, they are definately interesting.

This comes a little bit late but still.
The problem with badges is, that people tend to only do what is required for the badges and then stop doing it at all.
Sure, having multiple badges for doing it X/Y/Z times works, but the effect still happens at some point, unless there are unlimited badges to get and people therefore can't get into the mindset, that they got everything the mode has to offer.
Also, what about an FFA where just 37 players join and some people start complaining because they want the game to start and others want to wait for 40 because they want a shot at getting the badge? And when they decide to start the game with 37 players and instantly a third of them leaves because there aren't 40 in it?

The "Oh, shiny Badges!!!"-mentality can have some very bad effects. Badges are all nice and cool, but the sideffects aren't always great and should be looked out for.

As a small aside, if there are badges/medals, does anyone think it would be amusing if they appeared pinned onto the "chest" of the players commander unit? A bit silly, but I personally would find it funny if these advanced, mechanised engines of destruction felt the need to display shiny medals the same way their long deceased masters once did.

This made me think.. Not really for achievements but of some labels in the stat's at the end of the game would be fun...
Along these lines

Annihilator - destroyed a planet.
Grinder (most units killed)
Com killer (most com units killed)
Shield (most damage taken)
Explorer (most traveled player)
etc. ...

This would be to provide some interesting highlights at the end of game.
Would also be cool to have some screen shots (or clips) generated of big moments, like a planet being destroyed.