Lothic

Regardless of what's been said so far (and despite the fact that I would still want them anyway) I'm afraid whips/chains are "iconic" enough that we'd have a slew of Catwoman/Zorro/Indiana Jones clones on top of all the other problems that have been mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
I got 600 the other day but I have been working so hard to smash through that barrier that I haven't posted anything about it.

Now I'm at 610.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since most people who edge past the 600 badge mark now only have Day Job badges or top end epic badges left to 'work' on the fact that you earned 10 of them since just the "other day" is pretty impressive. Kudos.

One of the "upcoming" MMOs appears to have solved the 'non-Atlantis' underwater zone problem. *shrugs*

Our Devs have already 'beta tested' the concept in this game on a couple of specific maps.
Theoretically there's nothing holding this game back from having one except the will and effort to do it.

[ QUOTE ]
It's actually super hard to solo pillboxes with PVP changes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was looking at it from the ironic point of view that there are now, with the PvP changes, far fewer PvPers to worry about. While it may suck that there are fewer PvPers, the fact there are fewer out there does make it easier for badgers to badge in PvP zones. *shrugs*

Well going by memory the "team credit" fix came about 6 months after I7 went live (which roughly means it went in about 2.5 years ago). I remember it that way because I was just finishing up getting the pillbox badges on my main badgers and thinking it was funny the team thing got fixed pretty much as soon as I had suffered getting the badges via solo credit.

On the other hand the massive "anti-RTMer" Heavy nerf happened only maybe a year or 1.5 years ago. I think there have been several tweaks to Heavies over the years. But the massive one that really screwed them badly happened relatively recently.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember thinking "Man the people that got back from the future when it came out had it so easy", and I had it tough having to solo 1000 pillboxes .... now a days with the pvp changes I don't feel so bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
I got it back when you could 'trade' them, and I didn't. I remember thinking, "Wow! The neutral pillboxes give so much influence or prestige when you solo them, why would anyone do this any other way?"

[/ QUOTE ]
It's kind of strange how this has evolved since the beginning of RV:
[*] At the very beginning a hero and villain could trade pillboxes, even when lying dead next to one. [*] Once they 'fixed' that then it was kind of tedious to do them until they let teams get team credit for them.[*] Then the Heavies got nerfed. Squishies trying to solo them were pretty much back to very tedious again. [*] Now that PvP got 'fixed' I imagine it's relatively easier for badgers (even with effectively useless Heavies).

Sure neutral pillboxes are nice for INF/Prestige, but they are not easy for solo squishies with crappy Heavies. Clearly the Devs have maneuvered this thing towards teaming being the best way at this point for most people. That's probably the way they envisioned it in the beginning but it took several years of changes to finally get it there.

[ QUOTE ]
You know what's next right? The 700 Club!

[/ QUOTE ]
*shivers*
Hopefully the Devs will give us enough badges in I15 so we can quickly get to the 800 Club.

*secret handshake* Welcome to the club.

Oh you'll never get an argument out of me that the Devs have made some silly mistakes and design decisions with regards to badges. My initial response to you in this thread made light of one example of that.

I just find it hard to accept that having to deal with a few 'marginal' defeat badges with a few 'quirky' requirements is really something that A) needs to be fixed ASAP or B) are anywhere near approaching the badness of one particular badge named Empath. Basically there is no badge left in the game that remotely qualifies as being comparable to what that was.

There are so very few ACTUAL challenges in this game that it just really irks me when someone picks on a relatively tame one like these few defeat badges and wants a way to make them that much more absolutely trivial to get. It doesn't really matter if you or I have those badges already or whether or not anyone else will know how you got those badges or not.

Ultimately of course it doesn't really matter what I think about it because as you pointed out in the beginning the Devs have already made the decision on this. If you want to argue consistency then I could mention the fact that since the beginning of badges the Devs have only modified the specific requirements of 4 individual badges in 4 years, and two of those were done because their original requirements had the slight hiccup of being 100% broken.

You seem to think all defeat badges should be equally (and trivially) farmable.
I happen to disagree with that.

I think broken badges should be fixed, and the Devs have made progress in those cases that truly needed it.
But "hard to get" does not automatically equal broken and never will.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah so you've worked or are working for these badges already. Good for you.
You understand some of the "hoop jumping" involved.
You might even be able to appreciate your effort once you've finished these hard badging tasks eventually...


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, see my comment about Empath. Just because I did something the hard, long, and boring way does not mean I want someone else to go through the same crap. You'll notice that I also was for lowering Empath even though I had already spent a year getting the 1 billion heals.

[/ QUOTE ]
Surprise! So was I.

I got Empath the 'hard' way yet I probably wrote hundreds of posts in support of reducing Empath's original ridiculous requirement before AND after I got it. The difference between Empath and these few hard defeat badges is that Empath was BROKEN as it was. Many estimated it could take up to TEN YEARS of back-to-back days to earn Empath if you didn't farm for it. These defeat badges on the other hand are merely just 'vaguely hard' to get by comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure it'd be nice if MA could make some of those easier to do. But do you really want those few (and by extension pretty much every other defeat badge) to become absolutely pointless? Sure some are easily farmable now, but what you're talking about is being able to have every defeat badge on a character completable in a matter of a few hours.


[/ QUOTE ]

Weren't you also in the camp to lower the requirements on Empath? Weren't you also one of the ones that wouldn't feel "cheated" if they lowered it?

Looking like a bit of a hypocrite if you are now suddenly changing your tune that the defeat badges are the line in the sand.

There is NOTHING on a character that says how they got the badge, other than that they have it. There's nothing saying a person got Reformed by the doors or by farming Gaussian's arc. There's nothing saying that a person farmed a Crey mission for Paragon Protectors or that they went to the Fab and cherry-picked. There's nothing saying that a person farmed Titans in Warburg or that they went to the RWZ.

See, I don't CARE what other people do. I know what I did and that's all that matters to me. They had to defeat the same number of mobs for the badge that I did. How they went about it is not my business nor my interest.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I'm not suddenly changing my tune about this in the slightest. You are the one blowing this thing out of proportion trying to equate the stupidity of the original Empath to the mild annoyance of these defeat badges.

I have never once attempted to equate Empath apples to defeat badge oranges. For you to try to gain sympathy by trying to spin these defeat badges as the "next Empath" to be fixed is pretty sad to say the least.

Can you not see a little difference between ten years of daily back-to-back playing versus a few days or weeks of reasonable effort to finish a 'challenging' defeat badge? I can at least.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have a screw that you're trying to unscrew and instead of suggesting a better screwdriver to unscrew it your suggesting we be allowed to use an atom bomb to blow up the building the screw is in.


[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman much?

[/ QUOTE ]
You may keep calling my reasonable analogies of this situation strawmen all you want.
But they are useful in highlighting the relative absurdity of your position on this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well I will have to point out that your semi-legitimate argument for why the MA -should- allow for defeat badge farming is a bit muddied by the stench of "I don't want to have to work for them like other people did" regardless if the Devs intended them to be hard to get or not.

Sadly I don't think there is anyway you could pretty up that fundamental problem with your position on this. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have a point, except for that's NOT what I'm saying. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

I've worked for them. I've gotten the Hordelings on my Hero. I went through the doors and confusion method for Reformed. I'm partway through Outcasts on my Villain.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah so you've worked or are working for these badges already. Good for you.
You understand some of the "hoop jumping" involved.
You might even be able to appreciate your effort once you've finished these hard badging tasks eventually...

Sure it'd be nice if MA could make some of those easier to do. But do you really want those few (and by extension pretty much every other defeat badge) to become absolutely pointless? Sure some are easily farmable now, but what you're talking about is being able to have every defeat badge on a character completable in a matter of a few hours. That kind of trivialization is completely overboard.

You have a screw that you're trying to unscrew and instead of suggesting a better screwdriver to unscrew it you're suggesting we be allowed to use an atom bomb to blow up the building the screw is in.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Regardless of the question of MOB placement in the MA missions if those missions allowed us to farm for any defeat badge it would make many (if not all) of them much, much simpler. Exactly where can a hero merely street-sweep for Hordelings/Hellfrosts/etc now?


[/ QUOTE ]

Thing is though, you already CAN farm most of the badge mobs, excepting those that are "rare" on either side of the fence. Saying that farming those is somehow "better" or "harder" than farming MA mobs is facetious.

And you'll notice that the Hordelings bit would be legitimized by adding in credit. Currently, you can ONLY get those badges on a Hero by doing some finagling with levels in the Valentine's Mission. If a Hero getting Reformed (either through farming Gaussian's mission, the doors, or getting Confused) was such an issue, then those Defeats, logically, should also be an issue.

[ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't care all -that- much about this issue because my main badgers already have all the defeat badges on both sides. I spent the time and effort required to get them so if the Devs decided to undermine their own system by making them all trivial to get via MA it's not going to change the fact that I have them already.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. Here's the reason why. You've already got them. So everyone else should have to go through the same hoops.

[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand I just don't think it's worth making the whole concept of the defeat badge a complete joke in this game just for the sake of making a few of them a bit easier. It'd be like trying to have an Easter Egg hunt and having someone just hand you a basket full of eggs right off the bat because they don't want you to have to go through the trouble of finding a few of the harder-to-find ones by yourself. *shrugs*


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, tell me exactly how defeating them in the MA is any different than defeating them on the streets or farming things like the Destroy Hero Statues mission. You are defeating them in both instances. You are not suddenly logging in to find that you have the badges.

Also, strawman argument.

[ QUOTE ]

I tend to think part of what makes some defeat badges harder than others is not necessarily how hard it is to defeat the particular critter in question but how hard it is to -encounter- those particular critters in the first place. I also think the nature of those harder badges was in fact intended by design. MA would ruin that...


[/ QUOTE ]

*snort*

So you're saying the Outcasts villainside was intended? Rather than what I seem to recall Positron saying something about "rogue mission writers" or something like that (memory is a bit hazy).

Or that it was "intended" that Heroes use a lvl5-24ish Villain to set the spawning in the Defeat Terrigol mission to get Hordelings?

Saying it was "intended" is handwaving away bad design.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I will have to point out that your semi-legitimate argument for why the MA -should- allow for defeat badge farming is a bit muddied by the stench of "I don't want to have to work for them like other people did" regardless if the Devs intended them to be hard to get or not.

Sure the Devs let a few badges through they might not have otherwise wanted to slip through and you can call that a bad design all you want. You think it's their duty now to make those mistakes that much easier to exploit?

Sadly I don't think there is anyway you could pretty up that fundamental problem with your position on this. Sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok Devs, can we get some sort of reasoning on why you are not allowing mobs to give badge credit in MA missions beyond, "Because we said so"?

Srsly.

It would be a perfect opportunity to legitimize certain badges, such as Hordelings/Hellfrosts/etc for Heroes, and Outcasts/Trolls/etc for Villains. And I believe there was a comment by Positron about the Cabal defeat badge for Villains (people defeating the summoned Amy pet getting the bar to show up) and how it would be disabled till something could "legitimize" earning it beyond farming that single pet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well you have to remember these are the same Devs who just a few weeks ago tried to have the Reformed badge made unearnable by heroes via a stealth change until people had to 'respectfully suggest' that doing so would be an unreasonable bit of revisionism on their part. Fortunately the Devs agreed and "unchanged" their thoughts on that matter. Clearly the Devs' vision of badge earning in this game has been "colorful" to say the least.

While I agree that the MA could make a few currently annoying badges easier to get it would also potentially make many other badges incredibly trivial to get. We all know that the instant the Devs ever allowed the MA missions to let us to get any defeat badge we wanted there'd be a whole slew of simple "shooting fish in a barrel" styled one-shot missions that would let anyone farm those badges in minutes.

Basically it'd be nice if there was an easier way to get the few badges you mentioned. But in order to make the rest of them not become a complete joke I have to reluctantly agree with the Devs' decision not allow MA missions to grant defeat badges. *shrugs*

[/ QUOTE ]

And I have to say, in the words of Garfield,

"Big fat hairy, DEAL".

So what if some become "trivially easy" to get. Unless the MA allows for the placement of individual mob types, i.e. "This is a lt, this is a minion, this is an underling", there is no real difference between farming a MA mission and street-sweeping cherry picking mob requirements.

And unless I've missed a memo, that kind of mob placement isn't going to be possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Regardless of the question of MOB placement in the MA missions if those missions allowed us to farm for any defeat badge it would make many (if not all) of them much, much simpler. Exactly where can a hero merely street-sweep for Hordelings/Hellfrosts/etc now?

I honestly don't care all -that- much about this issue because my main badgers already have all the defeat badges on both sides. I spent the time and effort required to get them so if the Devs decided to undermine their own system by making them all trivial to get via MA it's not going to change the fact that I have them already.

On the other hand I just don't think it's worth making the whole concept of the defeat badge a complete joke in this game just for the sake of making a few of them a bit easier. It'd be like trying to have an Easter Egg hunt and having someone just hand you a basket full of eggs right off the bat because they don't want you to have to go through the trouble of finding a few of the harder-to-find ones by yourself. *shrugs*

I tend to think part of what makes some defeat badges harder than others is not necessarily how hard it is to defeat the particular critter in question but how hard it is to -encounter- those particular critters in the first place. I also think the nature of those harder badges was in fact intended by design. MA would ruin that...

[ QUOTE ]
Ok Devs, can we get some sort of reasoning on why you are not allowing mobs to give badge credit in MA missions beyond, "Because we said so"?

Srsly.

It would be a perfect opportunity to legitimize certain badges, such as Hordelings/Hellfrosts/etc for Heroes, and Outcasts/Trolls/etc for Villains. And I believe there was a comment by Positron about the Cabal defeat badge for Villains (people defeating the summoned Amy pet getting the bar to show up) and how it would be disabled till something could "legitimize" earning it beyond farming that single pet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well you have to remember these are the same Devs who just a few weeks ago tried to have the Reformed badge made unearnable by heroes via a stealth change until people had to 'respectfully suggest' that doing so would be an unreasonable bit of revisionism on their part. Fortunately the Devs agreed and "unchanged" their thoughts on that matter. Clearly the Devs' vision of badge earning in this game has been "colorful" to say the least.

While I agree that the MA could make a few currently annoying badges easier to get it would also potentially make many other badges incredibly trivial to get. We all know that the instant the Devs ever allowed the MA missions to let us to get any defeat badge we wanted there'd be a whole slew of simple "shooting fish in a barrel" styled one-shot missions that would let anyone farm those badges in minutes.

Basically it'd be nice if there was an easier way to get the few badges you mentioned. But in order to make the rest of them not become a complete joke I have to reluctantly agree with the Devs' decision not allow MA missions to grant defeat badges. *shrugs*

I think it basically boils down to this:

The Devs obviously have -some- system for determining who gets in each closed beta and who doesn't. But it was made pretty clear that its workings are something they will NEVER tell us based on the simple theory that if we knew how the system worked then we'd all bend over backwards to try to manipulate it to increase our chances.

And you can rest assured that they probably tinker with the exact requirements to be subtly different for each closed beta. Based on my random experience of which closed betas I have or haven't been in so far I couldn't really predict if I'd be in any future ones or not at this point. Case in point I also know of people who are pretty much in every one of them AND I also know of other people who hardly get into any of them. *shrugs*

Bottomline Vet status is one factor, but it's very likely only one of many they consider.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Devs have hinted at the possibility of allowing for hero/villain "Crossovers" for years.

It's been something they have been considering for a very long time but they have never guaranteed that it would happen or even pretended to announce a particular Issue it would be a part of.

You're a forum regular. How can you -not- know about any of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what I read, and am kinda sick of reading? All the people who week after week suggest Side Switching. Month after Month more and more people ask for it.

When a Dev posts something like this its like. Dang. Your giving them hope... WHY?!?!?!?!?

I would rather carrots stopped being dangled, personally. And just let facts speak for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
The only "facts" about this I'm aware of relate to a possible future feature which the Devs themselves have agreed would be a "nice to have" thing if they ever got the opportunity to make it work. The "fact" that many players over the years have also expressed an interest in it basically proves that it's at least something worthy of continued consideration.

Sure it still may never happen.
But frankly your reaction to the idea is simply over-the-top pointless on so many levels.
If you don't like the Devs talking about their own game I suppose you'll have to take that up with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

but your reactions to my posts make it so worth it

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm always more than willing to temper your "contributions" in these forums with a bit of logic and reason.
I consider it a public service of sorts.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Devs have hinted at the possibility of allowing for hero/villain "Crossovers" for years.

It's been something they have been considering for a very long time but they have never guaranteed that it would happen or even pretended to announce a particular Issue it would be a part of.

You're a forum regular. How can you -not- know about any of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what I read, and am kinda sick of reading? All the people who week after week suggest Side Switching. Month after Month more and more people ask for it.

When a Dev posts something like this its like. Dang. Your giving them hope... WHY?!?!?!?!?

I would rather carrots stopped being dangled, personally. And just let facts speak for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
The only "facts" about this I'm aware of relate to a possible future feature which the Devs themselves have agreed would be a "nice to have" thing if they ever got the opportunity to make it work. The "fact" that many players over the years have also expressed an interest in it basically proves that it's at least something worthy of continued consideration.

Sure it still may never happen.
But frankly your reaction to the idea is simply over-the-top pointless on so many levels.
If you don't like the Devs talking about their own game I suppose you'll have to take that up with them.

The Devs have hinted at the possibility of allowing for hero/villain "Crossovers" for years.

It's been something they have been considering for a very long time but they have never guaranteed that it would happen or even pretended to announce a particular Issue it would be a part of.

You're a forum regular. How can you -not- know about any of this?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You all massively fail for not posting this idea yet (except Ex Libris)

Reporter MUST be one of the day job options.

Edit: Also, I don't think the Architect would work, at least not with the SG base as the location; as it stands, if you log out there, you are booted back out the main portal.

Now, NEXT to the base portal on the maps might work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was thinking reporter as I was reading. Suggested location: next to a newsie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ideally, it should be Mild-Mannered Reporter.

Sailboat

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly for the same reason we won't get a "Mild-Mannered Reporter" Day Job we likely won't be getting a "Playboy Billionaire" or "Newspaper Photog" either.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The point was that as their work grinded on they started realizing their goal (what will now become Windows 7) was so far in the future that they decided to throw Vista at us as a stopgap meaure knowing full well that it wasn't really what they had in mind. Remember that many of the features we are finally getting in Window 7 were originally advertised for Vista years ago.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't help but disagree. Sure Microsoft isn't as user friendly as they come across but releasing Vista just to stall the community so they could make a finished product, is a bit on the extreme side of paranoia for the programming industry. I still see it as them realizing their "something different" product wasn't delivering what they originally intended and so made their way onto a product, a hybrid version of the original, that would hopefully correct what they were seeing Vista doing wrong.

Vista always was a gamble because you weren't taking a IP from anything else before hand and tweaking it. Sort of like XP to ME, not exactly the same but they both shared similarities. Vista had no predecessor and so in delivering something different, Microsoft was taking a chance. Judging by how the users reacted to this new product, was what I feel encouraged the "revamp".

[/ QUOTE ]
You are free to disagree with me all that you want.

But when many of the features that are coming in Windows 7 were promised for Vista years ago one can only assume that Windows 7 will finally be the OS they -wanted- Vista to be.

For all intents and purposes Vista was a "half-finished" Windows 7.
I don't fault them for trying to push it on us at all but at least I realize that was in fact what happened.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm running Windows 7 (build.7000) with an nVidia 8600GT with the unreleased 185.x drivers from nVidia. You can find them on Google. Windows 7 blows Vista (and even XP) out of the water in terms of speed.

If the benchmarks thus far are any indication of where Windows 7 is headed, it will definitely be the next XP. I think Microsoft glued the ball to their hand this time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much everything I've read about Vista suggests that it was a "half-finished" attempt at what Windows 7 is supposed to be. In other words Windows 7 was always the main goal but they realized it was going to take so long to complete that they released Vista as a sort of "placeholder" OS until the "real" OS was finally done. We can only hope that it will work out like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not seen any evidence of an actual plan like the above, its much more likely they just plain bleeped up Vista and now are scrambling like mad to 'fix it' with Windows 7.

[/ QUOTE ]
That was kind of my point. I don't think years ago the guys at MS sat down and "planned" for Vista to be a half-finished OS that many people didn't like.

The point was that as their work grinded on they started realizing their goal (what will now become Windows 7) was so far in the future that they decided to throw Vista at us as a stopgap meaure knowing full well that it wasn't really what they had in mind. Remember that many of the features we are finally getting in Window 7 were originally advertised for Vista years ago.

The expectations for Vista got downgraded to become the lameduck bridge between XP and Windows 7.
That's why I never wasted much time with it because I knew MS didn't really take it too seriously themselves.
They were just hoping enough people would buy it to keep making some money while they worked.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm running Windows 7 (build.7000) with an nVidia 8600GT with the unreleased 185.x drivers from nVidia. You can find them on Google. Windows 7 blows Vista (and even XP) out of the water in terms of speed.

If the benchmarks thus far are any indication of where Windows 7 is headed, it will definitely be the next XP. I think Microsoft glued the ball to their hand this time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much everything I've read about Vista suggests that it was a "half-finished" attempt at what Windows 7 is supposed to be. In other words Windows 7 was always the main goal but they realized it was going to take so long to complete that they released Vista as a sort of "placeholder" OS until the "real" OS was finally done. We can only hope that it will work out like that.

[ QUOTE ]
That was so geeky-cute. I grinned.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, we can't change costumes like that.....


[/ QUOTE ]

On my roleplay characters, I use an emote macro to switch between costumes.

/macro Uniform "cc 1$$em listenpoliceband"

<ul type="square"> - Uniform can be listed as anything: Civvies, Pwnz, Ninja, etc.

- The cc # is the slot itself. Cc 0 is the first costume slot, cc 1 is the 2nd, etc.

- And the emote can be any standard or unlocked. Full list in Mantid's Emote Guide.[/list]---

Edit/addition: There is a power change as well. Thank you, Nimrod.

/macro Civvies "cc 1$$powexec_name Nullify Pain"

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks... even though I'm well aware of using binds/macros such as these.
Been using similar ones myself for years.

But the problem with most of these combinations is that the particular emotes or powers used very rarely can be "timed" well with the actual change. Also as should seem obvious if you want to rely on using a power's animation for this you have to have that power available to use.

No what I'm talking about are fully dedicated emote animations that not only would be timed perfectly because they would be embedded as part of the /cc command itself but like the flight pose emotes would actually be specifically made to go with costume changes, not just be random emotes that kind-of, sort-of work for the purpose like your /em listenpoliceband.

My feeling is that if the Devs could get around to giving us flight pose emotes that eventually, sooner or later, they could give us purpose-made costume change emotes as well some day.

Yeah that video was cute enough I suppose. But like Work_Ethic pointed out all it really did is make me wish we had some dedicated costume change animation emotes again.

I still think all we need for that is a modification of the /cc command with an added argument for a specific animation. This way we could have a set emote (kind of like the flight pose emotes) locked into any given costume change.

Pretty please...

Student might have made a good name for a Day Job badge if it wasn't already a blueside History badge.

I suppose if they could come up with a good replacement name for that History badge they could always then free up Student for a new Day Job badge...