Oh you are about to be sorry for being condescending.
Right then, I deserve that seeing as how I came off as condescending and arrogant, I am now going to try and refute what you said.
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/
You're picking an example that obviously supports your view which is fine. But in this case I would determine it as "Cold Hard Fact" because of;
1) Eugen blatantly stated that the statistic did not account for many things or track many things like nations used, experience levels of players, so on and so forth.
2) It was a simple statistic, it was a percentage of which side won from the date that they started monitoring it. There were no hidden circumstances (I.e. of only the bottom 100 players, etc, etc.) It was pulled from ALL games. It was not skewed toward a certain side,
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!
No, they come out and say it is 50/49 in favor of blufor. And the immediate argument is that it is dependent on players. One that comes to mind that I have seen is that "Redfor" players that win are more experienced players who wish for just a challenge in Pub games and therefore that is the reason they even out. I could contend from my experience that that is a flawed argument because alot of pub games redfor players could happen to be noobs, or even new to redfor, which leads me into my next point.
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.
I can elaborate. Its clear in the units, the most obvious example i can think of is the transport helo situation. Look at the majority of blufor trans helos and what do you see? Smaller, sometimes faster unarmored helos armed with an MG. Now look at Redfor, MI8s, HINDS, and generally gunships as transport helos. I think we could both agree that if you try to make a Blufor Airborne Deck and win 10/11 games with it and then try and make a Redfor Airborne deck and try to play it like the Blufor one, you will lose. Both sides, and even nationalities and type decks DEMAND to be played a specific way. Now I am going to go out on a limb, and a pretty good one at that and say from the majority of well spoken english on these forums and or the chat that the majority of players are from some sort of westernized nation. In which case it makes sense that they would play Blufor... They recognize the units. I'll even admit to it, I play Blufor better and can create a more useful deck on blufor quicker because I am familiar with the particular uses of the units.
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?
Nope, that would be impossible, but again I do quite a bit of lurking and reading and listening to what people say, and I feel I have seen enough in general to state that as soon as people lose they want some sort of balance change because their holy unit couldn't mow down hordes. A post I see all the time that infuriates me would be something along the lines of this "Well USSR has the KA-52 with SEAD missiles, so I believe Blufor should get one. Everyone, from what i have gathered, is drawn to this game for Asymetrical balance yet in the same breath sometimes, they want all the nations with arsenals that look the exact same to the point of when you choose a nation, all you are choosing are different looking units with the same stats. This part of my post wasn't directed at Redfor but more in general.
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?
Well from the majority of players that I have played with and or seen or heard about. It seems that the opposite is true of what you say. Alot of people try to play redfor without understanding that they demand a different style than which blufor can be played. And when they lose again they call for symmetrical balance. In essence what I am saying is Redfor isn't as UP as you would like to think it is. I am not a primarily Redfor player but I can say that when I do play with them I have done a pretty fine job of winning. So back to the age old answer of, Redfor being worse is a simple matter of L2P
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.
Right, because what would all of these counterpoints be without an insult to me personally? Well more like multiple ones, I am not sure what exactly you were trying to accomplish with that, but it does make you look ever so mature. It isn't heavy reading at all compared to some of the books that you can read on these forums.
SeabeeDaddy wrote:Really? How ignorant can everyone be.
No no no, how ignorant can you be?
I admit that I did come off condescending and arrogant, and I formally apologize. The way that I put things can be very blunt at times. But in short, I have to defend the statistics that Eugen put out. They threw them out there, told you the shortfalls of them and left it at that. We are talking about a mere 1% difference over hundereds of thousands of games. And immediately it must be explained away by "Well the top tier players prefer Nato in ranked but they play Pact in Pub games for a challenge, which I think is a knee jerk reaction to what the statistic shows. Which is you are wrong.