Achievement names don't make sense

[Virtus]

Probably the most important aspect of 7 days to die are the given achievement names. I guarantee you if they changed them everyone will now be happy with the state of 7 days forgetting that the core mechanics use to be better back in the day. The community and direction of the game will unite as one and could possibly lead to world hunger being solved.

Tell me this, why do you get the achievement Napoleon for killing a player? What's the context and meaning behind this?

Why is it once you reach 5 players you get the achievement Julius Caesar once you kill 5 players? The numbers don't represent millions if that's what anyone thought, Julius Caesar killed around 1-2 million.

The worst one of them all why in gods name do you get the achievement Genghis Khan for killing 10 players but obtain the achievement Alexander the Great at 25 kills? Genghis Khan, the guy who killed over 40 million people reducing the world population by over 10% is lower than Alexander.

We need change and probably the most important change in the history of 7 days to die.

[TheChoccoBiccy09]

Your right, changing the name of a few things will be quite literally game changing. 7dtd will shoot up to spot number 1 on steam charts.
They just gotta change the name of the achievements!

[seven]

Pretty sure this post isn't serious, but the number of kills required used to be a lot higher. 500 for Genghis Khan. Not 40 million, but a respectable number of players. Used to mean something, now it's ridiculously easy.

[Virtus]

Originally posted by seven:

Pretty sure this post isn't serious, but the number of kills required used to be a lot higher. 500 for Genghis Khan. Not 40 million, but a respectable number of players. Used to mean something, now it's ridiculously easy.

Historically Genghis killed over 40 million so why is Alexander higher than Genghis is what I am saying.

[Crater Creator]

I’m no historian, but… the ordering aligns with Wikipedia’s ranking of the largest empires by area[en.m.wikipedia.org], which the article says is the most commonly used metric. First French colonial empire < Roman Empire < Macedonian Empire < Mongol Empire. I get that going by people killed would be a more direct analogue, but… eh, those were real people and that’s a morbid direction to take a game.

Correction: the game currently makes Alexander the Great the harder achievement than Genghis Khan, which doesn't align with the linked ranking.

[Virtus]

Originally posted by Crater Creator:

I’m no historian, but… the ordering aligns with Wikipedia’s ranking of the largest empires by area[en.m.wikipedia.org], which the article says is the most commonly used metric. First French colonial empire < Roman Empire < Macedonian Empire < Mongol Empire. I get that going by people killed would be a more direct analogue, but… eh, those were real people and that’s a morbid direction to take a game.

The mongol empire was far larger than Alexanders empire it's the 2nd largest in history next to the British Empire. Even if it's ordered by the extent of the empire it doesn't make much sense to correlate it to kills.

[Crater Creator]

So I see. I agree with you, that there would be a logic to making Genghis Khan a harder achievement than Alexander the Great. I thought it was but I read your top post wrong.

[James]

You're overthinking this, Virtus. This is just a zombie game.

I agree with Crater here 100%. If they were to make the achievement as historically accurate as possible, then it would be almost like celebrating or glorifying a terrible event that happened in the past. And I don’t think that’s necessary in this game, especially doing it purely for the sake of correlation with kill counts.

That said, I will offer a possible alternative. Maybe take 10-20 zombie movies/tv shows and add the total amount of kills and use that as basis for kills, and call the achievement something like "Zombie movie buff", instead of using historical figures. Do the same for the other figures as well.

[Virtus]

Originally posted by James:

You're overthinking this, Virtus. This is just a zombie game.

I agree with Crater here 100%. If they were to make the achievement as historically accurate as possible, then it would be almost like celebrating or glorifying a terrible event that happened in the past. And I don’t think that’s necessary in this game, especially doing it purely for the sake of correlation with kill counts.

That said, I will offer a possible alternative. Maybe take 10-20 zombie movies/tv shows and add the total amount of kills and use that as basis for kills, and call the achievement something like "Zombie movie buff", instead of using historical figures. Do the same for the other figures as well.

I disagree, I am not overthinking this as you may think as I purposely made the conversation light-hearted and non-serious while addressing something that I noticed that I believe is wrong and should be changed (but ultimately it's minor).

No ones glorifying these horrible historical events, I am merely pointing out the logical or in this case illogical achievements as Genghis khan is much higher in kills than Alexander. They made these specific achievements named after them for a reason I would imagine and they specifically tied them to kills. It wouldn't take much effort to fix either. If you have a problem with me trying to advocate for the correction of this technicality due to it being morbid in your eyes isn't already morbid by default regardless of change?

Once again it's very minor but it doesn't make much sense as what if I put down Jeff Bezos as a achievement for reaching 10k dukes then put Colonel Sanders as an achievement for reaching 20k. It's pretty funny but makes absolutely no sense.

[James]

Take it easy. I'm not taking this serious either. I never said I had a problem with you advocating for a change. I also never said you specifically were glorifying the events. I said if TFP were to make the achievements as historically accurate as possible then that would almost be like glorifying it, especially since it pertains to kills.

[Virtus]

Originally posted by James:

Take it easy. I'm not taking this serious either. I never said I had a problem with you advocating for a change. I also never said you specifically were glorifying the events. I said if TFP were to make the achievements as historically accurate as possible then that would almost be like glorifying it, especially since it pertains to kills.

I am taking it easy, you seem to be the only one who's actively hostile for whatever reason. Also I disagree that because achievements are somewhat historically intertwined does not mean they are glorifying these events. I addressed this in the post above, they have already annotated the kills to historical leaders. My gripe if you want to call it that is they are wrong/misrepresented such as my example with Colonel Sanders.

[James]

Originally posted by Virtus:

I am taking it easy, you seem to be the only one who's actively hostile for whatever reason.

Then you're taking what I said the wrong way. I couldn't have been any less hostile in anything I've said here.

Originally posted by Virtus:

Also I disagree that because achievements are somewhat historically intertwined does not mean they are glorifying these events.

It might somewhat come off that way if they did make it historically accurate. That's my point.

Originally posted by Virtus:

I addressed this in the post above, they have already annotated the kills to historical leaders. My gripe if you want to call it that is they are wrong/misrepresented such as my example with Colonel Sanders.

This is why I offered a possible solution above by removing historical figures altogether and correlating the achievements with something else.

But none of this matters anyhow. This is just banter lol.

[Virtus]

Originally posted by James:

Originally posted by Virtus:

I am taking it easy, you seem to be the only one who's actively hostile for whatever reason.

Then you're taking what I said the wrong way. I couldn't have been any less hostile in anything I've said here.

Originally posted by Virtus:

Also I disagree that because achievements are somewhat historically intertwined does not mean they are glorifying these events.

It might somewhat come off that way if they did make it historically accurate. That's my point.

Originally posted by Virtus:

I addressed this in the post above, they have already annotated the kills to historical leaders. My gripe if you want to call it that is they are wrong/misrepresented such as my example with Colonel Sanders.

This is why I offered a possible solution above by removing historical figures altogether and correlating the achievements with something else.

But none of this matters anyhow. This is just banter lol.

Telling someone to "take it easy" is a form of passive aggression in itself especially when the tone of conversation was passive.

I disagree with your view of if they made the achievements more historically accurate it would glorify the deaths of people, I think that's reading it too far.

That is a solution to remove the historical figures and replace them with other achievements but arguably they could simply switch the values. Both are solutions to the issue. I personally advocate they simply change the values of the achievements + I'm interested in understanding the logic and reasoning behind why they did the achievements as they are. We can only speculative but they may have gotten the values wrong and therefore wrongfully implemented those achievements with the assumption that Alexander historically killed more people.