Announcement Profiling

    • No, won't display them side by side at the same time, don't want to make everything too crowded and font would be too small to be readable. If we display multiple, then via some toggle or cycle-through option (or changing when you switch the tabs below). But I agree that the default should be player vs. human as that's the most relevant stat and can't be pushed as easily.

      K/D ratio means kills-death ratio and is a common abbreviation in online games, probably best known from shooters or MOBAs, but also used in some strategy games. You can also hover with your mouse over it, it's written out in the tooltip.
    • freezy wrote:

      K/D ratio means kills-death ratio and is a common abbreviation in online games . . . .
      It may be commonly used in other games, but in contrasting "kills" to "deaths," the difference between the two is not immediately obvious, let alone whose "kills" and whose "deaths." I would not compare your Call of War's English usage to some of these other online games, whose designers often seem to have the basic English skills of someone who failed their 8th grade English as a second language (ESL) class . . . . If it's not obvious to someone who holds multiple university degrees and speaks English as their native language, it's probably not obvious to anyone who is not immersed in the online gaming culture. In this case, we probably should defer to standard English language military usage.
    • I'm very confident that the K/D ratio is how many of your opponents' units YOU have (K)illed divided by how many of YOUR units have (D)ied. Remember, that regardless of the perspective (you vs. them), logically-speaking, a higher number is better for a player's stats. Since the K/D ratio is greater than 1:1 if the (K) is larger than the (D), then it is reasonable to assume that the intended perspective is that (K) represents opponent casualties and (D) represents your own and you want the (K) to be higher than the (D) to keep your ratio greater than '1' in each category.

      So, people with higher ratios in a single category either build fewer of that unit type or are very skilled at destroying that unit type. The numbers behind the ratio will determine which is more likely the case.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
    • freezy wrote:

      In an ideal world, yes. Sadly running a live game/engine/servers for over a decade is very complex. There are so many layers built by so many people over the years (and many of those people left the company), that no one has a 100% complete picture of everything going on in our code. While I certainly know most of the mechanics and aspects of our games, I cannot know all of them, especially if they were designed so far in the past. I personally think that the rank period won't affect the tracking of victories, as there were enough examples of victories counting also in longer games. But since I did not design these ranking period mechanics I could not answer it with 100% certainty. This is an old system carried over from S1914, and for many of these old features there is no proper design document available of how it "should" work. Therefore for old features like this the general consensus is: If it is an old feature that was not touched in a long time, the way it should work is how it currently works. I could now annoy one of our devs to dig in the code to answer your question with maximum certainty, but that is taking valuable time away better spent elsewhere. That is why I first asked here if someone may know the answer already from experience.

      And sorry if I am too honest and practical in my approach... Maybe some will appreciate it instead of getting only PR answers.
      Do not apologize. I enjoy frankness in a discussion such as this. I'm aware that CoW is built on the S1914 engine and I've surmised in the past that the standards haven't been maintained or possibly even never been defined. Ironically, you are giving me more incentive to want to work for Bytro as one of the developers. I have a knack for standards definitions with excellent technical writing skills as well as being a fluent programmer in multiple languages. It sounds to me like a person of my particular skills combined with my love of the game and thoroughness of work could be an excellent candidate for such a role equivalent to a TV "showrunner" for this and all of Bytro's games.

      And, sure, "if it works, don't fix it" is a common mentality in a company's established code. But upgrading old code to meet new and well-maintained standards can simplify future maintenance as well as make integration of new features much less painful. The fact that I actually enjoy doing this kind of stuff and all the writing that would be incumbent upon whomever does bring the code up to a single standard —— well, that just really makes me wish your company offered telecommuting because the idea of possibly moving to Germany for a job just isn't acceptable for me.

      But, a guy can dream....
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
    • Thinking: "when adults talk about dreams and jobs, me: I feel left out and like a child". Too young to know. LOL :D :D
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
    • @Diabolical: We are already getting better with it and nowadays of course define coding standards, use documentation and upgrade old legacy tech.
      You can still drop us your application (email is on the bytro homepage) and try to convince the responsible person that they should hire you off-site, I am not the one making that call :D I would assume it also depends on the stuff you have to offer. There can always be new precedents.

      @Clanpred: Seems the button to do so vanished? We will fix that.
    • Anybody else think there's a discrepancy between how many game solo wins/coalition wins the Profiling is saying. Mine says i have zero coalition wins- I think i have had 3 possibly 4. I've also had 2 games when I survived until the end of the game and earned some prize gold, although i wasn't in the winning coalition. - I accept these 2 games wouldn't count in either of the totals. Should be more than zero though.
    • Jonny Hurricane wrote:

      Anybody else think there's a discrepancy between how many game solo wins/coalition wins the Profiling is saying. Mine says i have zero coalition wins- I think i have had 3 possibly 4. I've also had 2 games when I survived until the end of the game and earned some prize gold, although i wasn't in the winning coalition. - I accept these 2 games wouldn't count in either of the totals. Should be more than zero though.
      This makes me wonder....separate from "Coalition" wins, do "Alliance" wins count in your individualized stats? And, if it doesn't, then maybe there should be a separate stat for total alliance wins. And that stat would need to follow you even if you switch alliances so that it doesn't get reset to zero....or gets set to whatever current alliance one belongs to.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
    • freezy wrote:

      But I agree that the default should be player vs. human as that's the most relevant stat and can't be pushed as easily.
      Update: Unfortunately we don't distinguish between player provinces and AI provinces captured, therefore we cannot display player provinces captured by default. We will keep the human player stats for units though as default. We will enhance the tooltip of both graphs to explain if it's against players or players+AI.
    • It seems to me that provinces captured is actually a poor statistic to be tracked, whether against human or AI. The reason is because it is too easy to capture a bunch of unoccupied provinces from a human player while he or she is at work or asleep....just as it is easy to take a bunch of provinces from the AI if it hasn't built up a decent and spread-out defense [yet].

      To me, the Military score is a far FAR FAR FAR more relevant statistic in this game. Anyone can conquer empty or lightly guarded provinces and just as easily, anyone can build barracks and fortresses and factories, etc. Easier still, one can use Gold to build more buildings AND units and puff up their economic score and -- indirectly, even -- their military score by winning with gold-bought units. But, at least, with the Military score, the bulk of points gained will be by units that were painstakingly-built and worried over (with strategy) rather than just paid for out of pocket.

      Though some of the super high economic scorers might have pretty large military stats, it isn't that [military] score that stands out, but, rather -- invariably -- almost all heavy gold users will have their super puffed up economic stat be the obvious stand out. And so those heavy golders are easy to ignore in the ranking list. So, barring those people with such puffed-up economic stats, you can tell by the remaining higher ranked players who is really outperforming others via their non-economic stats. Is this a perfect tell? Of course not. But it's far superior to either the economic ranking or the captured province ranking.

      TL;DR -- The only thing that matters is military stats.


      Oh, and that puts me at 73rd. in the world. ;) :D 8o :D :P

      Cheers! :beer:
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.