Announcement Real Time Statistics

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Real Time Statistics

      Dear Generals!


      In times of war, every good strategist requires regular status updates: How many casualties? How weak is our enemy currently? They want to compare themselves to each other, but only one can be the best!
      From now on it will be possible to check your progress in real time. This means: Your statistics will be updated immediately and you will be able to literally watch how your ranking gets higher and higher.
      Up until now statistics were only updated once per day.
      Go in and win! Follow your own progression and tell us in the forum how many ranks you climb each day!


      Here is a list of all additional changes and improvements:


      • The scrolling when opening a new conversation with another player didn’t work properly, this has been fixed.
      • We fixed a bug that made it possible to build more than just one harbor in a province.
      • The time a building needs to be repaired is now shown correctly in the preview.
      • Sometimes the size numbers in the split command popup didn’t change when moving the slider. We fixed that.
      • Articles without spaces didn’t fit into the newspaper, this has been fixed.
      • On some servers wrong language strings were showing up, this has been fixed.
      • After all resources have been bought on the market ‘0’ was displayed, instead of deleting the entry. This has been fixed.
      • We fixed several bugs in the tutorial.
      • We improved the current word filter. If you have feedback for us, let us know in the forum!


      Have fun with these updates and the brand new statistics system,
      Your Call of War Team
      Sarah / Sasri
      Ex-Community Manager
    • Sasri wrote:

      From now on it will be possible to check your progress in real time. This means: Your statistics will be updated immediately and you will be able to literally watch how your ranking gets higher and higher.
      Nice work. Very nice.

      And I believe you will discover this will encourage the hardcore COW players to play even more, thus contributing to COW's traffic, and ultimately to Bytro's bottom line.

      Kudos.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • I've gone through as many vulgar words as I could think of in the chat (using an in-game chat where I'm the only player left in the match). And I found the new list was in pretty good order. Most swear words seem to be blocked that ought to be blocked. A few minor words that shouldn't be blocked...are, however.

      While the list was pretty comprehensive, I was pleased to see one thing removed from the list, "cipa" which I suppose might be a swear word in another language, but is common in words like "participate", etc.

      I have a short list of words that I think ought to be added to the list and a short list that I think should be removed from the list, still. I believe that the list is a little overly-sensitive for politically-correct purposes, however, it is less rigid concerning some words with strong innuendos. I think a reasonable compromise is to have a list that keeps the language PG-13 rated, which would safely cover about 98% of Bytro's fan base.

      Because some of these words might be deemed offensive to some, I will only include them in a double-spoiler so as to safely follow Bytro rules in this special conversation...which was requested by Bytro staff in the announcement.

      DO NOT CLICK ON SPOILER UNLESS YOU ARE 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER

      Display Spoiler


      Display Spoiler


      Words that I feel should be blocked:
      (but currently are not blocked)

      "queer", because both g.a.y and d.i.k.e are blocked....it makes sense, considering usage content....if those are blocked, then this one should be blocked also

      "cock", because it is a common term for p.e.n.i.s

      "prick", same reason as above

      "dick", same reason as above

      Words that I feel should be unblocked:
      (but currently are blocked)

      "p.e.n.i.s", ironically, because it is an anatomy word, not used in swearing (whereas "cock" would be used in vulgar context)

      "b.i.t.c.h", because this one is too mild to be considered majorly offensive in normal society

      "s.u.c.k.e.r", because this word is completely safe to use*

      "i.d.i.o.t", because let's face it, this is a word children can call others on the playground without getting in trouble...it is a very safe insult...and insults (non-nasty ones) should be allowed, obviously...besides, "stupid" is allowed and it is no less offensive than this word

      "m.o.r.o.n", same reason as above

      Words that some might want blocked, but I am OK with it either way...blocked or unblocked:

      "damn", because my mother used to tell me not to say that

      "ass", same reason as above

      *Note(s):

      I argue that s.u.c.k.e.r should be unblocked. However, when used with cock, prick, or dick, it becomes a very offensive word. However, if those three words become blocked, then unblocking s.u.c.k.e.r would be completely safe as proposed.

      While these lists are fairly comprehensive, I can add words to it if others feel I've forgotten something or that I might not have heard of. If you have any words to add to my list, please private message me the words and their meanings so that I can determine whether I think they should be added to this list. Also, please don't try to "educate" me with overly-imaginative words....I'm already worried enough about the trash I am opening myself up to. But, for the sake of objectivity, I am willing to review all entries.


      Remember, though, the less likely a word is used, the less likely anyone would recognize it in a bad way (e.g., "wiener" is sometimes used as a slang for p.e.n.i.s, but most mature adults realize that a wiener is just a wiener and makes for a good hot dog lunch...or a cute little doggy with short legs, therefore it does not belong on the banned list).






      DO NOT CLICK ON SPOILER UNLESS YOU ARE 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER
    • [font='&quot']I second the motion to block the suggested words, but hesitate to unblock the words Razzeria would like to see allowed. If you want to denigrate the play of either an opponent or ally who hasn't any meat in his sandwich, there are many ways to do it. I prefer to use constructive criticism. Simple slurs are cheap hits and just because playground monitors don't react to them fiercely doesn't mean the should be considered appropriate for cordial conversation. If players want to try out troll behavior, let them experiment elsewhere.[/font]
    • Barrimann wrote:

      [font='"']I second the motion to block the suggested words, but hesitate to unblock the words Razzeria would like to see allowed. If you want to denigrate the play of either an opponent or ally who hasn't any meat in his sandwich, there are many ways to do it. I prefer to use constructive criticism. Simple slurs are cheap hits and just because playground monitors don't react to them fiercely doesn't mean the should be considered appropriate for cordial conversation. If players want to try out troll behavior, let them experiment elsewhere.[/font]

      Of course, everyone can debate what words are better to block or allow. But, when I made my suggestions of words to allow, they aren't just for insulting....for example, sometimes when I talk about myself, I might self-denigrate (tongue in cheek). For example, if I make a mistake, I might say "I'm an id.iot". Or, maybe when making a point about something, one might not mean to insult another person, but you might disagree with their point saying something like "Well, that's just stu.pid." Even though some of my suggestions might seem slightly harsh to very few people, they're not "bad" enough to warrant blocking from regular speech.

      Still, though there are some terms that either should or should not be blocked -- and that can be debated -- the choices of some words (whether blocked or not) are made on very arbitrary conditions. And arbitrary conditions (i.e., "political correctness") are very poor reasons to justify their consideration either way. Political correctness is a perfect example of a self-defeating argument that is usually based on the misdirecting straw man reasoning of people who are not willing to concede that weakness of one's point of view does not justify "niceness". Sometimes, people's "sensitivities" are not worth protecting.

      Display Spoiler




      In addition to the straw man argument, another poor argument device usually relies on circular reasoning without a basis upon which to stand. When one fails to convince with a straw man argument, they will often resort to circular reasoning. A classic example of circular reasoning (and because this is the perfect place for me to put this totally unrelated tangent in place :D ), is that utilized by archaeologists to date fossils. That will be contained within the other Spoiler further below.

      Still another poor argument device -- and one that even I sometimes use -- is the bad habit of repetitiveness. Using repetitive reasoning is usually due to having a lack of relevant supporting statements. However (as is the case with me at times) it can simply be a mistake of losing track of one's own argument (just as a run-on sentence is usually due to losing track of one's ability to compartmentalize their thoughts). Now, I call this an argument "device" but it really only is a device if deliberately intended. And, though some people deliberately use repetition as a device to reinforce their point, most people (myself included) tend to use repetitiveness accidentally.



      Frankly, in the context of this forum and the chats being for a war game, worrying about people's feelings and sensitivities seems rather moot. This isn't chess. This is a means to challenge others and oneself to serious strategic thinking. And along with that kind of thinking ALWAYS accompanies banter, teasing, and [often] arguments. That's life. That's reality. And the people who decide which words should and should not be banned need to remember that. Plus, it wouldn't hurt to make sure that they are native speakers for the language they are censoring. In any case, this is why I suggest keeping things PG-13 rated....it's just "rude" enough to be cool and just "tame" enough to be polite.

      ~0~

      This following context is highly controversial in that it makes a rock-solid argument about fossils (pun intended). However, it is unrelated to the topic at hand and one should only read it if they are prepared to learn both about the fallacy of circular reasoning as well as the invalidity of determining ages via fossils and layers. It deals with a topic that is "sensitive" in that it tends to bring a great upset to atheists because the "reception" of the argument is itself a classic example of how verbal sensitivities are making an entire generation of people to become pansies.

      Display Spoiler


      The simple foundation for this argument is that the dirt in the earth is sort of layered (sorry, another pun, I know, I can't help myself). There are multiple possible reasons for this. It is fact that the earth is layered...though not as neatly as the textbooks would have you believe. It is also fact that some certain fossils are sometimes found in specific layers (though not "only" and often not at all). Because of this, some fossils are unjustifiably titled "reference" fossils or "index" fossils. This is because the layers are commonly determined by these so-called index fossils.

      Fine, I can accept that those fossils tend to be found in the same layers. However, when asked how to date the fossils, archaeologists will often determine the date of the fossil based on the age of the layer it has been found in. But, when asked to determine the age of a layer, those same archaeologists will decide the age via the index fossil.

      Archaeologists will say something akin to "this layer contains the 'x' index fossil, therefore it is approximately 'y' millions of years old". Or, they will say something like "this fossil was found in the 'u' layer, therefore it is approximately 'v' millions of years old". This is sad reasoning because they can't establish a base age for either fossil or layer since they date each via the other. That is the most classic example of circular reasoning I can think of.

      Now, you might be thinking to yourself "But, the scientists know the ages by other dating methods like carbon dating, etc...So your circular reasoning argument is an irrelevant example that doesn't matter". Well, the only way those scientists can use chemical isotropic dating methods on the materials of either layer or fossil is to make bad assumptions about the original conditions of a substance when it was first made.

      For example, scientists can determine the half-life of a radioactive isotope, and they can measure the current quantity of that isotope found in the material. But they can't determine the original amount of the isotope found in the base substance that has decayed to make the current quantity. So dating the substance by the percentage of the isotope (or the base substance found in the material) that has changed does not work because the original quantity is completely unknown...it is only guessed.

      The only exception to that rule is if the original amount of the base material is known via deductive reasoning when the exact age is predetermined via record or direct observation (i.e., a substance is known to be at least 200 years old because it is found in the tomb of a person whose tombstone gives the burial date as 200 years ago). Then, if you know the half-life of the isotope's base element found in the substance, you can calculate the original quantity because of the known passage of time. Ironically, this only strengthens the fact that you can't use half-life dating methods to determine age, though you can use a known verified age to determine the original substance's quantity via its half-life.

      Oh, and one more thing, the most commonly cited dating method is carbon-14. However, that method is specifically unreliable to determine the date of any substance predicted to be more than a million years old simply because the decay-rate of Carbon-14 is far too short such that no amount of Carbon-14 can survive more than a few hundred thousand years...even if the original substance was pure Carbon-14 (which is an impossibility, given the nature of how Carbon-14 is found in nature).

      Even with the fact that a half-life retains half of the original substance within the half-life-time-frame,over longer periods of time, as the substance's total quantity reduces, eventually the half-life of the material tends towards zero remaining substance as the quantity is too small to be detected and it will reduce past the half-life's predicted quantity and just go to zero. And as mentioned above, Carbon-14's half-life is far too short to retain even the tiniest amount for even just a million years.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Razzuria ().