Idea: Guild Player Kill Log

Simple idea really. To keep track of whether or not the players in the guild are being too toxic (because a little ain't so bad and the amount is relative to the guilds preference and intention) Have a log for every time a player kills another player that's accessible in the guild. That way if you are opposed to having a player camping continuously you can request for them to stop. On the flip side it could be used as a way to track guildies kills and reward them for it. Can also even have a "killed by" list so you can go avenge your guildies. Feel free to pick and prod at this idea, I defintiely want to see all of your thoughts.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sathrago

Dolyem wrote: »

Another fun feature that could go super well with this is it could also pair well with the bounty system and keep track of the amount of player kills criminals have while they are being hunted. Could even list the names of their victims giving more incentive to their friends and guildies to join in on earning the bounty.

Totally using this as a spring board for suggesting an overly detailed "Wanted- Corrupted Player A" poster that has the avatar images of all their victims stapled/outlining the wanted poster itself. They would have little details like being apart of a "missing" sign or "Have you seen this person?" with bloody Xs crossed through their images.

(For the clowns out there, this is only a semi-serious suggestion and given the choice I would throw it away in favor of core/vital systems. It is more of a detail/flavor thing that some games who enjoy even the little details like to do.)

JustVine

Sathrago wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Another fun feature that could go super well with this is it could also pair well with the bounty system and keep track of the amount of player kills criminals have while they are being hunted. Could even list the names of their victims giving more incentive to their friends and guildies to join in on earning the bounty.

(For the clowns out there, this is only a semi-serious suggestion and given the choice I would throw it away in favor of core/vital systems. It is more of a detail/flavor thing that some games who enjoy even the little details like to do.)

What about the historical mime ex-pat community

CROW3

Sathrago wrote: »

Totally using this as a spring board for suggesting an overly detailed "Wanted- Corrupted Player A" poster that has the avatar images of all their victims stapled/outlining the wanted poster itself. They would have little details like being apart of a "missing" sign or "Have you seen this person?" with bloody Xs crossed through their images.

We're right there with you, brother...

Sathrago

CROW3 wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Totally using this as a spring board for suggesting an overly detailed "Wanted- Corrupted Player A" poster that has the avatar images of all their victims stapled/outlining the wanted poster itself. They would have little details like being apart of a "missing" sign or "Have you seen this person?" with bloody Xs crossed through their images.

We're right there with you, brother...

"This just in, local man beaten to death for not sharing their fishing spot."

Dolyem

Noaani

I have differing opinions on this.

On the one hand, having access to objective information is good.

On the other, not having access to this information adds potential for intrigue.

If I tell my guild leader that someone from a supposedly allied guild killed me, that could potentially end an alliance and start a guild war.

Merek

JustVine wrote: »

@Merek I suppose you don't want a 'you were killed by ThotBot22' death screen in this case either? If you get ganked by a group there is definitely room for 'misinformation', but when it comes to vengeance I personally want a clear idea of who I should hunt for my death.

If the game's combat log doesn't read Hotdog_Demon92 used Fireball on JustVine for 243 damage, though I would be sort of confused as to what information should be in said combat log. What do you want game logs to say that isn't 'spoonfed'? If the example is acceptable then there isn't really /any/ room for ambiguity except in the smallest of cases and those small cases wouldn't be less confusing if the tool existed. (A guild member accidentally or purposely flagging for guild member pvp comes to mind.)

I'm not against a local combat log, I'm against a globally accessible guild log that automatically writes down the name of everyone that your guild has engaged or been engaged by. I definitely understand wanting a clear idea for vengeance, so, if you've got a decent memory, you would remember their name or at least their gear.

JustVine wrote: »

Going 'well I want my guildy to make external notes and to have to manage all this on my own' is fine, but it /is/ creating extra work an add on could have done. It is therefore a QoL thing I would expect would not be particularly hard or resource intensive for Intrepid to add.

I never said I wanted them to create anything, I said I wanted it outside of the game. QoL = Laziness in many cases, if you can't remember who wronged you, lucky them. And no, it wouldn't be very resource intensive but it's not necessary.

JustVine wrote: »

My last point on this topic is 'there are still reasons for a guildy to report to their officer.' What gear did they have, where were you, what were you doing, how did they get the jump on you, did you aggro them, what tactics did they use. All pertinent important information a good guild will want that this death log wouldn't provide. The social element is still preserved if you give us this QoL feature.

That information is irrelevant. Their gear, 'aggro' and tactics are irrelevant. The question will always be, who did it? And if that's answered by a globally accessible guild log, there's no social element to be had. The only reason you'd want to keep their gear in mind would be if it's so unique you couldn't forget it unlike their name. But that's an irrelevant thought when I can quick-tab into the guild menu, click 'logs' and view 'combat feed' to see who and when.

JustVine wrote: »

The one situation I can see happening if this /isn't/ a feature is now I don't know who in my guild isn't reporting to their officer. I can't think of a good reason other than shame, for not reporting. That's a bad thing to let fester. This tool would allow a good guild to prevent festering and force social confrontation. Without it, it's letting anti-social behavior go unchecked, which I personally don't think is within Ashes general design philosophy.

If your guild members don't report being killed then that's on them, either they don't care or they really do feel "shame". I don't understand how it can fester, if dying makes you feel shameful in a game you've got issues that need to be resolved outside of it.

JustVine

The combat log means they have objective clear cut info. There isn't any 'unclear' info about who killed who. The only 'potential' intrigue on that point here is a forgetful or asshole guildy. 'Forgetfulness' isn't fun gameplay or drama. Asshole behavior depends on your personality if you find that entertaining or not, but it isn't intrigue.

Its far more lazy to just say a few names from your combat log in guild chat than it is to effectively debrief your officer on the situation. At least if the officer knows something happened they know someone needs a reprimand if they don't report.

If you don't think all the other examples of important information isn't relevant, and you don't understand why it's better to have a positive confirmation rather than a negative one 'because you think personal issues should be resolved out of game' then I wouldn't be surprised if you told me you have never been in a leadership position in a guild. We can agree to disagree on those points due to our differing life perspectives.

Atama

Ravel wrote: »

Or even better, guilds can declare to be officially at war with each other and from that moment a kill count is maintained that show how many times your guild killed players of the other guild and vice versa.

Guild wars are still a work in progress and we don't have a ton of into about them, but this might be interesting info to have during one.

https://www.ashes101.com/guildwars.php

Merek

JustVine wrote: »

The combat log means they have objective clear cut info. There isn't any 'unclear' info about who killed who. The only 'potential' intrigue on that point here is a forgetful or asshole guildy. 'Forgetfulness' isn't fun gameplay or drama. Asshole behavior depends on your personality if you find that entertaining or not, but it isn't intrigue.

Its far more lazy to just say a few names from your combat log in guild chat than it is to effectively debrief your officer on the situation. At least if the officer knows something happened they know someone needs a reprimand if they don't report.

If you don't think all the other examples of important information isn't relevant, and you don't understand why it's better to have a positive confirmation rather than a negative one 'because you think personal issues should be resolved out of game' then I wouldn't be surprised if you told me you have never been in a leadership position in a guild. We can agree to disagree on those points due to our differing life perspectives.

I understand it's clear cut information, I don't want anyone to have it. I want drama, I want people to make mistakes, it makes the game more entertaining. Whether you like that or not doesn't matter, that specific debate is based on personal taste. And I don't get how someone else being forgetful makes me an asshole, if you're the dumbass that forgets who PK's you? Neither of us are, the person that PK'd you is technically the asshole. If your members aren't willing to properly debrief you about it, again, you've got shit members.

Having a log in your guild window that lists who died and who got killed doesn't help, at all. If anything, doesn't that bring more 'shame' to players that don't report? "Hey, X, why didn't you tell me you got bodied 5 times within the span of 15 minutes at Misty Mire? What are you? Shit at the game? LOL!?" What someone doesn't know, won't hurt them. There's no need to project either, it's not very becoming of someone that's been in a leadership position...

Dolyem

Merek wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

The combat log means they have objective clear cut info. There isn't any 'unclear' info about who killed who. The only 'potential' intrigue on that point here is a forgetful or asshole guildy. 'Forgetfulness' isn't fun gameplay or drama. Asshole behavior depends on your personality if you find that entertaining or not, but it isn't intrigue.

Its far more lazy to just say a few names from your combat log in guild chat than it is to effectively debrief your officer on the situation. At least if the officer knows something happened they know someone needs a reprimand if they don't report.

If you don't think all the other examples of important information isn't relevant, and you don't understand why it's better to have a positive confirmation rather than a negative one 'because you think personal issues should be resolved out of game' then I wouldn't be surprised if you told me you have never been in a leadership position in a guild. We can agree to disagree on those points due to our differing life perspectives.

I understand it's clear cut information, I don't want anyone to have it. I want drama, I want people to make mistakes, it makes the game more entertaining. Whether you like that or not doesn't matter, that specific debate is based on personal taste. And I don't get how someone else being forgetful makes me an asshole, if you're the dumbass that forgets who PK's you? Neither of us are, the person that PK'd you is technically the asshole. If your members aren't willing to properly debrief you about it, again, you've got shit members.

Having a log in your guild window that lists who died and who got killed doesn't help, at all. If anything, doesn't that bring more 'shame' to players that don't report? "Hey, X, why didn't you tell me you got bodied 5 times within the span of 15 minutes at Misty Mire? What are you? Shit at the game? LOL!?" What someone doesn't know, won't hurt them. There's no need to project either, it's not very becoming of someone that's been in a leadership position...

I mean, taking personal taste out of it, designing a game to have better quality of life mechanics that arent affecting the skill required to actually play the game sounds like a win for the most part.

And going back to personal taste, I am going to be one of the assholes ganking, and I think it is completely fine to have a system that would notify a guild that I am stomping their playerbase. Any PvPer who doesn't want that is probably just scared they wont be able to easily gank in open world.

CROW3

@Dolyem - I’m printing your wanted posters at Kinkos tonight. 😈

Dolyem

CROW3 wrote: »

@Dolyem - I’m printing your wanted posters at Kinkos tonight. 😈

Yessss!

HazardNumberSeven

Noaani wrote: »

I have differing opinions on this.

On the one hand, having access to objective information is good.

On the other, not having access to this information adds potential for intrigue.

If I tell my guild leader that someone from a supposedly allied guild killed me, that could potentially end an alliance and start a guild war.

That's the kind of emergent and immersive gameplay I am worried we will miss out on if we give players too many meta info systems.

I would love for that kind of intrigue to exist.

JustVine

HazardNumberSeven wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I have differing opinions on this.

On the one hand, having access to objective information is good.

On the other, not having access to this information adds potential for intrigue.

If I tell my guild leader that someone from a supposedly allied guild killed me, that could potentially end an alliance and start a guild war.

That's the kind of emergent and immersive gameplay I am worried we will miss out on if we give players too many meta info systems.

I would love for that kind of intrigue to exist.

You would either need combat logs to not have clear entity names in the logs or have a way to make screenshots exclude combat log entirely. I am not saying your or Noaani's points about intrigue aren't valid. It is the most valid argument I have seen made here. But the intrigue it brings is definitely a smaller amount without one of those two things being true. Otherwise screenshots are a pretty heavy ender to the conversation when it comes to allies. Still room for suspicion though. Sometimes that is all you need in a shaky alliance.

My only real counter is that 300 members is a lot of humans to keep track of regardless. This kind of tool would benefit them the most. A minority assumedly but it still hss utility for smaller guilds also.

My suggestion to meet in the middle is this. The log could have a limited time and quantity window for example. It could also only leave record to those online. This would allow for someone to gaslight, for example, that this happened outside of the historical range (1-5 days maybe) and therefore the person going 'that's not true' could be countered with 'you weren't online, this happened awhile ago.' Yeah there are ways to get around the limitations (overseer accounts and external documentation for example) but it's certainly still allowing for some of that intrigue to occur whole giving access to the tools in question.

HazardNumberSeven

JustVine wrote: »

HazardNumberSeven wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I have differing opinions on this.

On the one hand, having access to objective information is good.

On the other, not having access to this information adds potential for intrigue.

If I tell my guild leader that someone from a supposedly allied guild killed me, that could potentially end an alliance and start a guild war.

That's the kind of emergent and immersive gameplay I am worried we will miss out on if we give players too many meta info systems.

I would love for that kind of intrigue to exist.

You would either need combat logs to not have clear entity names in the logs or have a way to make screenshots exclude combat log entirely. I am not saying your or Noaani's points about intrigue aren't valid. It is the most valid argument I have seen made here. But the intrigue it brings is definitely a smaller amount without one of those two things being true. Otherwise screenshots are a pretty heavy ender to the conversation when it comes to allies. Still room for suspicion though. Sometimes that is all you need in a shaky alliance.

My only real counter is that 300 members is a lot of humans to keep track of regardless. This kind of tool would benefit them the most. A minority assumedly but it still hss utility for smaller guilds also.

My suggestion to meet in the middle is this. The log could have a limited time and quantity window for example. It could also only leave record to those online. This would allow for someone to gaslight, for example, that this happened outside of the historical range (1-5 days maybe) and therefore the person going 'that's not true' could be countered with 'you weren't online, this happened awhile ago.' Yeah there are ways to get around the limitations (overseer accounts and external documentation for example) but it's certainly still allowing for some of that intrigue to occur whole giving access to the tools in question.

Yeah, that sounds fine to me. I like it.

Dolyem

JustVine wrote: »

HazardNumberSeven wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I have differing opinions on this.

On the one hand, having access to objective information is good.

On the other, not having access to this information adds potential for intrigue.

If I tell my guild leader that someone from a supposedly allied guild killed me, that could potentially end an alliance and start a guild war.

That's the kind of emergent and immersive gameplay I am worried we will miss out on if we give players too many meta info systems.

I would love for that kind of intrigue to exist.

You would either need combat logs to not have clear entity names in the logs or have a way to make screenshots exclude combat log entirely. I am not saying your or Noaani's points about intrigue aren't valid. It is the most valid argument I have seen made here. But the intrigue it brings is definitely a smaller amount without one of those two things being true. Otherwise screenshots are a pretty heavy ender to the conversation when it comes to allies. Still room for suspicion though. Sometimes that is all you need in a shaky alliance.

My only real counter is that 300 members is a lot of humans to keep track of regardless. This kind of tool would benefit them the most. A minority assumedly but it still hss utility for smaller guilds also.

My suggestion to meet in the middle is this. The log could have a limited time and quantity window for example. It could also only leave record to those online. This would allow for someone to gaslight, for example, that this happened outside of the historical range (1-5 days maybe) and therefore the person going 'that's not true' could be countered with 'you weren't online, this happened awhile ago.' Yeah there are ways to get around the limitations (overseer accounts and external documentation for example) but it's certainly still allowing for some of that intrigue to occur whole giving access to the tools in question.

I mean...you still just screenshot the log with a time stamp.

Child Item