Stats

[Lewin]

Nissarin is right, if we're going to separate kills by tower we might as well make all the statistics separable. So if you click on a column it shows you exact details. I don't think Nissarin hijacked your thread at all, he just suggested an extension to your idea. His suggestion was not off topic. However some of the posts afterwards have been off topic.

But IMO that's far more detail than is necessary, and just over complicates the interface. I don't think it's important to know how many kills were by towers or by units. I'd be interested to see a mockup UI for your suggestion.

@EDMatt: Whats the point of that?

I'm interested to hear the answer to this too. Just posting a topic saying "You should do X" is not going to convince us. You need to explain why it's useful/necessary.

[Jeronimo]

Tower kills should be implemented into the stats at the end of the game and not added into the overall kills.

[Ben]

Nissarin is right, if we're going to separate kills by tower we might as well make all the statistics separable. So if you click on a column it shows you exact details. I don't think Nissarin hijacked your thread at all, he just suggested an extension to your idea.

I disagree; although only partially. Nissarin took the topic to a totally different subject. If Matt had not responded to Nissarin, it is very likely that the topic would have changed from talking about tower kills, to general ideas about the stats screen. Perhaps he should have waited for Matt to get a real response about the actual topic first, or just started an entire new topic himself (starting with, for example, "Matt's topic made me think of something...").

Tower kills should be implemented into the stats at the end of the game and not added into the overall kills.

Jero, why do you always slam Matt? I do not appreciate it one bit. You picture Matt as a troll and terrible person, but a response like this post of yours is just as bad as anything you imagine Matt to be.

Now please, let's respect Matt and stay on topic:

Ahem, Matt is one of the smartest KaM players out there, but; unfortunately, he does not always explain everything in the forum like Mulberry does. Instead, he talks on TeamSpeak for hours and comes up with a conclusion. I was present at the time of the tower discussion so I will try to explain how the discussion went.
In many TeamSpeak games, players have gained an enormous about of deaths to tower kills, because unlike many players the public release, towers are often charged with militia, trash units, or even quality units if the attacker knows that the deaths are worth the loss. Even if the attacker loeses huge amounts of soldiers to towers, he may have made the right choice and won the game (and much sooner) because of it. However this results in ugly statistics. Players are told that they "didn't fight good." This is especially true in team games. Say Matt and I are attacking To. If Matt charges the towers and loses half of his men to the towers, and I only lose one or two, my stats will be much better. Does this mean I played better? No, of course not. Matt just took the sacrifice that was needed.
In a recent game, Mulberry holed up in his base when losing against Matt in 1v1. After fighting through over a dozen well placed towers, Matt finally won, but at a huge price to his stats. In the end of this game, many players were beginning to think that stats are becoming so deceiving, and a huge part of that is loses to towers.

[FeyBart]

Slightly off-topic:
What I don't like is that Matt didn't take time or care in the slightest to explain his idea and why it should be done. He just states "this this and that should be done". Period. And then he complains when the next post is slightly off topic, but he himself doesn't bring it on topic again either. Instead he posts some random one-word or one-sentence responses to other people, complaining about how it's off topic, still not adding anything of content to support his idea. Ben's post is the first one that is really relevant to the OP, explaining the idea while it wasn't even his suggestion. While I agree that Nissarin's post wasn't perfectly on topic, I still think that it wasn't irrelevant either. He first responded to Matt's idea, and then gone on and posted his own.

On-topic:
But about the suggestion: I also partially agree with both sides. Tower deaths can indeed trouble the stats. But if you're going to add tower deaths, you could argue that many more stats should be separate, since there are many more of these kind of influences that could play a role in the amount of deaths someone could have. It would be nice to see this implemented, but personally, I wouldn't give it a very high priority at all.

[pawel95]

There is no reason up to here, why implementing it. I mean, killed by towers, is killed by towers. So its your risk when you don´t shoot on the tower with bowmen but rush into it, why should it be than an extra column in the stats?

[Ben]

There is no reason up to here, why implementing it. I mean, killed by towers, is killed by towers. So its your risk when you don´t shoot on the tower with bowmen but rush into it, why should it be than an extra column in the stats?

Because shooting towers with bowmen is (often) a waste of time, and it just gives your enemy time to train more soldiers or wait for reinforcements from an ally.

Also, read my quote:

Say Matt and I are attacking To. If Matt charges the towers and loses half of his men to the towers, and I only lose one or two, my stats will be much better. Does this mean I played better? No, of course not. Matt just took the sacrifice that was needed.

[Jeronimo]

Well Ben... Matt could have explained a bit the reasons to backup his statement, that's why I thought this was a sort of joke thread.

In the other hand, I don't dislike Matt as person or player.
I actually have warm feelings towards him, in the friendship sense, but he doesn't know this.

[EDMatt]

Thank you for the wonderful explanation that was put forward, Ben!

[sado1]

Ben, you get a potato medal for using To as an example of a tower camper

[BloodTree]

I am usually guy who are going with army in the first lines and lose a lot on towers.
Can`t say that thous guys with axe can call even army thous are for tower cleaning or for mass effect.
If i have after game on stats 100 kills and 200 or less deaths i am happy.

[Lewin]

Thanks Ben for explaining what EDMatt did not.

I think the same argument could be used for adding almost anything to the stats. Some examples:

- If I make lots of militia and less iron troops, I will have much higher losses than my allies who made only iron troops. Therefore we need a column "militia equipped" separate from the "soldiers equipped" so people can tell why I had higher losses and don't assume I'm a bad player.

- If I was attacked early on in the game and lost a lot of my troops, but then we repelled the enemy and defeated them, my kills will be lower than my allies since I lost most of my army early on. So we need to show who was attacked first so people know that I'm not a bad player because my kills are lower.

You can't tell what happened in a game or which players are the most skillful just from looking at the stats screen, you need some explanation to go with it to understand it. You can't judge whether someone is a good player or not just from his kills/deaths. A simple message like "Matt's kills are low because he lost most of his soldiers breaking through the towers" would suffice. In a team game there are many useful roles to play that don't always give you the best results on the scoreboard. It's not possible to show on the stats screen every possible way in which someone can contribute to a team. I mean, does a full-back defender in football complain that he never gets to score any goals?

I'm not saying more detailed stats is bad, but I don't think we should single out towers. If we are going to add more stuff to stats we should do it like Nissarin suggested so you can see more detail about any stat, not specifically towers. But IMO the stats are fine at the moment, I don't think we need to complicate it any further.

Tower kills should be implemented into the stats at the end of the game and not added into the overall kills.

Jero, why do you always slam Matt? I do not appreciate it one bit. You picture Matt as a troll and terrible person, but a response like this post of yours is just as bad as anything you imagine Matt to be.

I think Jero was frustrated by EDMatt's complete lack of explanation or reasoning, which is completely understandable. Also, EDMatt has given himself a reputation on this forum and been warned many times by moderators for insults, bad language, etc. It's not surprising that some people dislike him.

[BloodTree]

Lewin have so true arguments.
I like it.

[Ben]

I agree with what you say, Lewin, about how we'd need an infinite amount of columns to show stats in a non-deceiving way, but I think that there is one flaw in your examples: Storming towers with units is a needed-- and good-- strategy in a game. Unlike the choice of training iron or leather, or using the marketplace or not using the marketplace, storming towers is actually something a player has to do; therefore, I think that it wouldn't be a terrible idea to add tower kills to the stats. Also, please don't forget this point I made:

Say Matt and I are attacking To. If Matt charges the towers and loses half of his men to the towers, and I only lose one or two, my stats will be much better. Does this mean I played better? No, of course not. Matt just took the sacrifice that was needed.

[The Dark Lord]

I agree with what you say, Lewin, about how we'd need an infinite amount of columns to show stats in a non-deceiving way, but I think that there is one flaw in your examples: Storming towers with units is a needed-- and good-- strategy in a game. Unlike the choice of training iron or leather, or using the marketplace or not using the marketplace, storming towers is actually something a player has to do; therefore, I think that it wouldn't be a terrible idea to add tower kills to the stats. Also, please don't forget this point I made:

Say Matt and I are attacking To. If Matt charges the towers and loses half of his men to the towers, and I only lose one or two, my stats will be much better. Does this mean I played better? No, of course not. Matt just took the sacrifice that was needed.

Last time I checked it was still possible to train ranged units and bring them down ony by one.

So yeah, you can choose to go for iron or for leather;
You can just as well choose to charge at towers or destroy them from a distance.

[pawel95]

- If I make lots of militia and less iron troops, I will have much higher losses than my allies who made only iron troops. Therefore we need a column "militia equipped" separate from the "soldiers equipped" so people can tell why I had higher losses and don't assume I'm a bad player.

Yeah that was what I wanted to say basicly You could implement every tiny thing. However I think the problem with the different types of army is the biggest problem and it would be easier be implemented than tower kills i think:

KM_TPR 2013-03-21 14-36-48-08.jpg