# Gamification Service
2025-05-11
## Context
We are planning to integrate various gamification elements into our system in the future, based on the Player Hexad Types (e.g. Achiever, Player, Socializer, etc.).
As it is not yet clear what these gamification elements will look like in detail or how extensive they will be, we need to decide how we want to structure them technically. The aim is to create a architecture that enables expandability without unnecessarily increasing complexity.
## Options Considered
### A: Separate service per hexad type (e.g. AchieverService, PlayerService, ...)
#### Pros:
- Clear responsibility per player type
- Modular and potentially scalable
- Thematically aligned with Player Hexad Types
#### Cons: 
- Higher initial effort
- Results in many microservices
### Option B: Separate Service per Gamification Element
#### Pros: 
- Maximum modularity
- Clear responsibility per feature
#### Cons:
- Results in a large number of microservices
- Lack of clear thematic grouping
- Higher operational and development overhead
- Complex coordination
### Option C: Monolithic Service for All Gamification Elements (Chosen)
#### Pros:
- Low initial development effort
- Simple to maintain
#### Cons:
- Potential bottleneck as complexity increases
- Not consistent with our overall microservices architecture
## Decision
We chose option C: a monolith for all gamification elements.
This allows us to start implementation quickly, test early ideas and learn what works without over-engineering a structure for features that are not yet clearly defined.

In addition, our team currently has limited experience with microservice architectures, so starting with a monolith provides a more manageable environment to gain hands-on experience with the application.
We recognise that this may be a temporary solution and plan to refactor into smaller, well-scoped services if needed.