That's all anecdotal. When you go back to the ITS crawl/scrape MO was not in a good spot. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Lol, no. Just no If you really want to get down to it. None of us have the controls in place to properly evaluate the ITS data. But that doesnt stop you trying does it.
The correlation between those things is weak. First point, players who are winning are not the most capable of offering an 'actual evaluation' (this is called an 'appeal to authority'). The data is the only thing that can offer an 'actual evaluation.' Good players do good regardless of the army they pick (if they are good players and not players who are good at MO). I see no supporting evidence for your second point at all. What controls do you believe would be required for this?
No, that's the default position everyone should take until you provide evidence that shows correlation. No evidence of correlation = no reason to suspect correlation.
Here's a little adage to toss back at yours. "A poor craftsman blames his tools. A good craftsman doesn't buy tools from harbor freight". For the non-americans, that's saying a good craftsman won't blame his tools bevcause he buys good ones. There is no hypothesis being rejected here buddy. The one man crusade (heh, get it?) of CB can do no wrong however....
Of course it does. But one could think that actually this years missions weren't that bad for MO ("simple" supplies, Firefight, Frostbyte, Hunting Party and mayby a bit problematic HC), heck they even seem quite good for MO ^^
Or, maybe, the new Hypotesis should be: MO have a Steep Learning Curve. Is Hard to play for a newbye or a casual player, but more you play it (using your brain) more you become confident and realize that is a strong Sectorial. Su, summarized New Hypothesis: MO is hard to learn to play with, but once done is a strong Sectorial. And now we begin a new iteration of the sceintific methods More a scientist than a politician
I too get annoyed when people aren't willing to eat my anecdotal evidence as the one and only truth. Pfff statistics and overall performance... Saito Togan rolled more 18+ on Armour saves than any other model I own. He even beat 2 Berserking Galwegians in ARO once. Therefore he is as tanky as a TAG because I say so.
this isnt anecdotal. Wins are quantification. Lacking controls and thus limiting conclusions, but utterly a quantifiable data set. Certainly its not mere casual observation.
Just have to point out that Ireland has only beat Japan in 87.5% of their tests. And South Africa has only beaten Japan in 50% of their tests.
You have to use all the data, not only the wins. If you use only a part, you are using biased data. Also, there was a thread about a recopilation of results in the ITS for all the factions, do anyone know if it was updated with all the season data?
Obviously..ypu also have to normalise it and ensure that you have the valid controls so a win and/or loss vs or with a plauer that has only had a handful of games is far less weighty than a win and/or loss at say a satellite near the top end. Additionally to properly test, youd start small, look for trends in the data available which as previously mentioned will be incomplete. Then design an experiment to test that hypothesis. Probably limiting things initially to say a single player vs a single opponent and then building more complex experiments from there
Absolute and relative number of high tournament performance are both at the very bottom. Even if MO had a theoretical high skill ceiling, there seems no one good enough around to cash in on those, wonder if someone has ever gotten to 14+TP with them at above 30 players/5 games. You personally did better with Varuna than MO and things seem to be in a similar for other people. This is Infinity you don't plummet down to 0% wins just because the faction you play is shit by Infinity standards. Someone who wins 80% of his games with CA doesn't go down to 40% just because he is playing MO. He'll maybe end up with high 60s anyway. Here comes the anecdotal stuff. I couldn't get anywhere close to the 11 game winstreak that felt easy with Aleph when playing JSA. They have very tough matchups and you can already feel that during deployment. Everyone I talked to about playing with or playing against MO was unimpressed, compared to lets say OSS or Shasvastii. /anecdotal stuff. Thing is a drop from 80% to 67% results in a massive performance gap across 5 games on average. You don't need to be abysmally bad to have a very hard time at doing well. One less TP across 5 games reliably costs you the tournament win almost every time you try.
Well, SA and Japan played only twice. Expect a streak of 8 victories for SA in the future. In Ireland's case, they've won 7 times against only 1 win from Japan. Still inside my predictions. But we need more matches to prove or disprove my predictions which, by the data we have today, are completely feasible. Anyway, the rugby example was there to illustrate a point. Let's not hijack the thread and enjoy the discussion.
What I meant with my analogy with rugby is that what is supposed to happen doesn't necessarily happen. What is the point to say X faction is strong / weak ? Is you have a strong faction and facing a weak faction, even if the player facing you is no significantly better he can outplay you and win. The game is well balanced enough so that usually nothing is over until it's over. I mean, unless you can prove the faction is completely broken and unplayable, it doesn't mean much.
