SeabeeDaddy wrote: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.
First of all I would also like to apologize, I could have answered your post without being a d1c.
The reason I don't address your latest post in more detail is because I think we both made our points.
I stand by my point, the statistic alone has the value of being a curiosity, a statistic needs a detailed context to have value, and this one has not. Again, please, read about the misuse of statistics, its important to understand their value and not jump to completely erroneous assumptions.
The top ranked players statistics is more reliable, BUT still, the context used is an educated assumption based on more or less 30 years of gaming experience. What I mean is, competitive gamers overwhelmingly don't care what faction, nation, weapon, whatever, they use to win, their goal is to win, therefore they will choose whatever options the game gives them that will make winning more likely. That's why this statistic as relevance, it shows that the top players clearly think Bluefor is better, otherwise we would most likely see a 60-40 difference, maybe, maybe a 70-30 difference.
Now on your assumption that people don't know how to play with Redfor as much as they do with Bluefor, indeed. I concede that most players most likely get used first to Bluefor, only later to Redfor, but this also works in my point advantage, which is, this players more often than not will just stop playing Redfor, leaving Redfor to the more experienced players who know how to. So in essence this argument cancels itself out.
Anyway, many reasons have been put forward for why the odds of getting a better team with Redfor are higher than with Bluefor, no point in regurgitating them again.
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.