Who killed who

I know I can cycle back through the log, but where we show the "skull/crossbones" could we have that inside of the color of the person that killed them? I think it would be neat at the end of the game to see who did the most killing.

Not sure if we store that information anywhere except in the game/event logs, but I do like the idea of showing who killed who.

Not sure if we need to colour the skull, or just put it in a mouse over tooltip e.d.

Mouse over would be tough for mobile so if we could color it that would be good. Keeping stats of it would be good as well, e.g. total kills, kills per game, etc. Maybe instead of just storing "dead" as a boolean (just guessing) it could be storing the user id that killed them.

Another thought is that there are some games where someone will kill everyone, then lose the game at the end, but they get nothing and the winner gets all the credit. Maybe every kill you get 5 points from the user that you killed. In a 9 person game if you would normally say lose 25 ranking, but you killed 6 people you would technically not lose any ranking and instead maybe gain 5 ranking overall.

As for the first thing: good point, I will add it to the internal issue about it.
(and no, of course we don't store a boolean dead, how pessimistic. We store a boolean alive).


As for the second point: NEVER.
There is absolutely no point in killing people if you can't win. And we definitely shouldn't stimulate that. It'd just mean more suicide.

This is the most important thing about free-for-alls (or war in general): killing is bad unless you win.
Who is the smarter general: the one that killed all his enemies but one (and then lost)? Or the one who let the other general do all the dirty work and then secured victory?

First vs. Last

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWICKSP6vhQ

In life that rarely holds. Usually making friends and having a good time is more important. Even in war: if you win: that's good. If you make peace and you both can prosper, that's better.

But as for free for all games where there really is only one winner, yup, if you aint first, you're last.

This shouldn't be a feature in fog games as the whole point of fog is you don't know how powerful anyone else is.

@Madagascarter: It already is part of fog - it's one of the few things you see in the game log.

This would be good for capitals so we can see if the winner did the killing or benefited from someone else's mistake during a failed run. Ofc the log will.tell the real story but it may make me think twice about taking risks in those games due to the shame haha

Knowing each player's headcount during and after the game would make the game more interesting I think. I imagine it would also make some players more aggressive in order to claim the honour of being the deadliest player in the game. Moreover, it would serve as a consolation prize to the players who put in an effort, but nonetheless lost the game anyway.

Perhaps each player's total number of kills could even be added to his / hers personal account as a dynamic stat?

Btw. any tweak that can make the log easier and faster to decipher is greatly appreciated, so this would be a step in the right direction I think.

I get your point, but kills is not always a good metric to count how good players are. If players are trying to optimise for killing the most other players, they might prematurely try to kill another player, and this could lead to more suicide attacks, and more games ruined. I understand that going for a win in a 9 player game and then getting bad rolls on the last kill is frustrating, but it's part of the game, and the 7 kills you made before don't really mean much. You can also get those 7 kills by going for them when you know you can't take the final player, and give the game away.

I understand it's a cool thing to see, but we have to be really careful to not encourage behaviour other than "playing the best you can to win the game". Killing players is not always one of them.