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