Alcorr wrote:At the highest levels of gameplay in ANY game people are going to use the most powerful units/factions to win, end of story. Perhaps if the breakdown was 60/40 you would have a point, but 90% is too much to simply write off as people merely liking blufor more than redfor for whatever silly reason.
A statistic that has context can be used to draw conclusions from.
SeabeeDaddy wrote:I am sorry to sound condescending or anything but what?
Oh you are about to be sorry for being condescending.
SeabeeDaddy wrote:Seriously guys, Eugen come out with COLD HARD FACTS
I'll give you an example, a very widely known example of blatant misuse of statistics, the american pay gap between males and females. The statistic says that females earn 77 cents per each 1 dollar a male earns, does this mean women are paid less than men? It must right? After all its so clear, its such a COLD HARD FACT!
or maybe... maybe...http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender- ... lete-myth/
SeabeeDaddy wrote: on the win ratio which is close to 50% even and you completely disregard it and try to explain why it is so close?
It's half and half (almost) sure more wins in blufor but those can also be explained by many variables.
Oh wait... the fact that it isn't clearly 50% for each side can be explained by many variables, but everything else just can't... let's just disregard what we need and say that what favors our view is a COLD HARD FACT! Amazing logic!
SeabeeDaddy wrote:Red for demand a DIFFERENT STYLE of play in which most people cannot adapt to so they say "Hato is OP".
Please elaborate on this argument, otherwise I'm calling this absurd bullsmith.
SeabeeDaddy wrote:I don't understand it. People are thrilled about asymmetrical balance but when they lose they want balance completely
Always lovely to see the "they lose" argument, another example of a pointless speculative argument with zero value. Because you been tracking every single player who claims the unbalance to be real, and you checked their in game stats (see statistical fallacy below) and concluded they are all Redfor losers, right? right?
SeabeeDaddy wrote:why can't people just understand that you need to lay them differently which is why people hate Redfor so much.
Why can't you just understand that most people already know that and already know how to play with redfor? Do you have any proof or argument to prove your point? I mean other than subjective speculative nonsense...
But thank you for telling us, why we hate redfor, in fact I didn't even know I hate it and since you are telling me it must be true right? right?
My recommendation is to inform yourself before speaking about stuff you don't understand.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics
"A misuse of statistics occurs when a statistical argument asserts a falsehood. In some cases, the misuse may be accidental. In others, it is purposeful and for the gain of the perpetrator. When the statistical reason involved is false or misapplied, this constitutes a statistical fallacy."
I hope this link isn't too much of a heavy reading for you.
SeabeeDaddy wrote:Really? How ignorant can everyone be.
No no no, how ignorant can you be?
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.