Here you go, good luck arguing with them.
I think the consenus has agreed that PE is the hardest faction to play at the moment. That could be one likely reason for its short falls that you've pointed out based on the leadership boards wind.
However, I would argue against using the leadership boards as a primary source for your argument. Although some truth may be found in them, they are often hidden well and ambigious. Using personal experience/observation seems to be the prefered method here, and I would encourage it.
In my experience, PE are on relatively stable footings. They compete well against many other doctrines/factions. Even against AB or Infantry, PE are not necissarily at a strong disadvantage unless they are TD. My SE account dominated AB/Rangers; as it was largely focused on AI/map control. Similarily, my LW account dominated both in the area of AI/AT (although the AT is likely a lot less powerful now that fall ambush has been fixed). And once more, my TD account utterly raped armor and surprising held its ground well against AB/Infantry. These are my experiernces, they are not here to say that PE does not have issues. Rather, I am simply providing my one point of view.
PQ
PS: I still think SE needs some help doctrine wise, its the weakest of the 3 imo.
Actually personal experience and observation are the least reliable method for supporting a point, because they are highly subjective and variable according to the person who is using them. Anecdotal evidence is on the same level, objectively, as theorycrafting, and it basically becomes a "my opinion vs yours" situation. Person A says: "I think WM are the weakest faction. I have an american and WM company and the american one is way easier to win with". Person B says: "No way, Americans are way too underpowered by comparison. I have both too and my WM always wins."
What do you have? Absoloutely nothing, because the conversation is completely subjective. Balance discussions based on this invariably turn into subjective opinion masquerading as universal truth just needing to be painstakingly explained to the other person as if the fact that they just don't agree is somehow the result of them not understanding my point (as if it's so obviously correct they would definetely agree if they just understood).
The "you shouldn't use the leaderboards" case is nothing new. In fact, some of the objections frequently used against them are actually grounded in some truth: even bad players can have good scores, even good players can have bad scores, some people stack, some people play to lose for PP, the top 20 aren't neccessarily that army's best 20 players, and some people are unlucky with partners, etc. and all this can inflate/deflate/unnaturally effect the stats shown.
That is all well and good, to be fair, and it means that its very important to use these boards with a grain of salt. After all, each army has the same opportunities to have stackers, PP farmers, etc. And the same chance for it's players to have bad luck with their partners etc. They offer a guide for broad and general suggestions, but not for specific and very precise diagnosis. For example, you can take a look at the current boards and say "PE has the highest percentage of negative score players out of it's "top 20 players". Keep in mind, this board reflects the 20 people who play PE the MOST, and not the best 20 players. You may think at first this means it is not a good representation of the army's capacity, but also important is the fact that (if you should go with this line of thinking) that those "good" players who might not be represented haven't even played enough games with the army in question to make it on the board (right now for PE you need about 15 wins to be listed, also the lowest of any other army).
So yes, there is a margin for error that needs to be taken into account when reffering to the leaderboards, but remember: the leaderboards aren't designed to show the BEST players of an army, but rather the players who play that faction the most and it is that distinction which makes them important as a tool in this discussion because we are lookign for a general trend: PE as a competitive army for the general public of the mod, not for the best players in the best circumstances. Who makes it on that list, therefore, and which players don't bother to play enough games to get on it for PE(notice the huge lack in crazy ratios on the PE boards) says alot about how good the army actually is.
You cannot honestly look at the leaderboards right now and see the following:
-That PE has the fewest number of win-loss ratios
-That PE has the highest number of loss-win rations
-That PE has the fewest number of players with 2-1 or higher win-loss ratios
-That PE has the fewest number of wins period
And try to say that somehow all of that pointing in the same direction is somehow not relevant, or useful in a discussion about the overall appeal/potential of the PE army in the current mod environment. It is not the be all and end all evidence to open and shut the case, but it is an excellent starting point and very valuable supporting evidence.
-Wind
Ps. I agree with you about SE, it is the weakest of the 3 PE doctrines (which is saying alot)
Read the first part of your post. Didn't have time to read the rest, so it’s only in response to the first part.
You're familiar with a paradigm yes? You realize there is more out there than simply a positivist understanding. You fail to realize that research can be conducted not only through quantitative methods but also through qualitative methods. This is an age old debate; I don't expect it to be argued here. Just realize there is more than one way to search for truths; and claiming objectivity is simply ignorant considering true objectivity is near impossible. Subjective findings are just as valuable as objective ones, and in many cases more useful then objective ones.
Observation and personal experience are crucial aspects of balance; disregarding them as simple opinion is a beginner mistake. Realize that we aren't studying a concrete concept here; there are many ways to operationally define our concepts. Ignoring this fact or claiming objectivity is the only way simply shows how little experience you have with regard to research and finding your so called 'universal truth'.
Seriously mate, you can't take these ideas you learn out of a textbook and try and apply them here. This is coming from someone with 6 years of experience in both qualitative and quantitative research.
PQ
PS I still love you
Read the rest of your post Wind; I am not saying ignore the leadership boards. I was simply pointing out that at no point should they be the foundation of any argument. You might combine your personal experience with the leadership board stats to draw out some conclusion. Even then, I’d be very careful of any conclusion I made.
When I use the word "universal truth" you seem to jump to the idea that somehow I'm searching for it, when really it's brought up because when you have entered into an opinion discussin in this forum you seem to forget that opinion is what you are arguing. Your words seem to take that step for granted, and the post suggests that you assume your opinion and personal experience evidence, while not neccessarily "invalid" by any means, elevate your overall argument to a level beyond appreciating its own inherrent subjectivity. It's that kind of thinking that I take issue with, and why I keep saying "your use of x and y doesnt mean you have reached objective truth." You agree that outcome is almost near impossible, and that thinking should dictate your handling of other people's opinions/anecdotal evidence in the future.
Yes observation and personal experience can be very helpful when talking about balance, that is true, but keep in mind what I argued for here is that the leaderboards are not the "be all and end all" of balance discussions, and that they need to be taken with a "grain of salt" due to their numerous and widely understood shortcomings. Those are direct quotes I used to explain my firm conviction that they offer invaluable insight as a guide to developing a better understanding of the argument at hand.
Nonetheless, I strongly disagree with you that personal experience/anecdotal evidence can be more useful than objective ones, particularily in this current environmnet in which we discuss balance. It can help, and offer insight, but those sources are far more useful and reliable in a vacuum environment where bias and prejudice are at a minimum. Considering we discuss balance of 4 different armies here, and none of us are in any way removed from our own subjective preferences etc., balance arguments that make some reference to independant date (data such as the leaderboard) are very useful because they ground the discussion a little more in support that can be verified objectively (A person can see what he wants to from a past game or experience, but its hard to see what you want to with the leaderboards due to their very limited and simplified reasonable applications).
Thats why it is not correct to try and negate the usage of leaderboards as a guide for a balance discussion. It does indeed have its flaws as ive pointed them out myself, but the exact same argument against it could as equally well be leveled against personal experience etc. Hence how players are discouraged to post balance threads right after a game the issue came up in.
-Wind
Well, you’re arguing an age old debate. Is qualitative research less desirable than quantitative? Is the scientific method (one you seem to prefer) more valuable to our understanding of this reality than say a critical or naturalist perspective? The answer? There is no answer.
Your right, any data that is gathered subjectively must appreciate that nature of such subjectivity. This is at the basis of any good qualitative research conducted. As far as your claim of anecdotal evidence goes, clearly you lack understanding of the full context and meaning of that word. Its been used many time to argue a similar point; but it only goes to show the ignorance of those using it. Long have the positivists of this world tried to discredit qualitative research by declaring it anecdotal. For that reason, you’ve gone too far and best watch what you say next. You’re taking this to a personal level.
As far as the leadership boards go, read the last paragraph of my last post. However, I will add that you’ve failed to appreciate the level of ambiguity presented in that data. You’ve mentioned how some of these ambiguities have occurred, but you’ve addressed them as simply shortcomings when really they are quite major. Furthermore, your use of the leadership boards is invalid and breaches many principles of validity; primarily that of construct and internal validity. How can you ensure that the boards properly measure whatever it is you are looking for? More so, how can you be sure of the strength or correlation of the data? If you insist on being a positivist, at least try and do it properly.
PQ
I have 30 years of qualititave and quantitative research experience. Prove me wrong.
That is the problem with an internet forum when it comes to "personal" evidence. It becomes a "you say" "I say" balance discussion, when what we need is something that we can independently verify.
Personal experience arguments etc. just don't hold the same water on an internet forum balance discussion. This is not a cosmic argument about naturalism, the nature of reality, the scientific method, or the value of human experience over empirical data. It's a discussion simply about the fact that, when two people disagree in this forum, one type of argument more easily verified than the other. That is, an argument which relies upon evidence that can be seen by people other than the speaker (I believe this is true, due to these 4 replays which you can all watch to see my point, the leaderboard stats, this RGD file etc.). Now, if we were conducting experiments where the personal experience/anecdotal evidence could be confirmed or atleast relied upon to have actually occured, or there is no reasonable doubt that it might be remembered incorrectly/fabricated so as to support a bias (which is something we can't remove from balance discussions on this forum no matter how hard any of us should try), then yes in a perfect world we wouldn't need to have evidence beyond personal experience for this board. The problem with this environment, though, is that we could find 20 people who swear US is the most underpowered army, 20 who think WM is, and so on and so forth for eternity.
The good thing about independant data in this particular environment is that it stands a better chance of two people looking at the same support and being able to come to the same conclusion, whereas someone saying "WM are underpowered because I lost my last 10 games with them" could provoke very different interpretations.
Now if that person supplied replays of those 10 games, and we could all watch them and see that they had played as good as or worse than their opponent but merely had inferior units/doctrine abillities, then we would have something beyond just their word that it happened as they represented it to us.
The leaderboard stats have many problems. I listed them at great length in one of my posts here, saying how important it was to keep in mind it's by no means a clear-cut, open and shut, non-porous form of evidence for truth. However, I have said and continue to maintain that it is certainly valuable when considered with a grain of salt, as it offers one of the lease subjective types of support used for balance arguments in this game, and one of the few that can actually be independantly verified. That is to say, if you say something about some of the numbers on them them, I can go and check to make sure it's true.I think they provide an excellent starting point upon which a hypothesis can be formed. "Hmm it seems like PE has the most negative win loss ratios. This suggests that of all the armies currently being played, the PE players who play the most are having alot of difficulty winning." You then go on to determine whether or not that hypothesis is accurate.
Grand, cosmic age old debates are fantastic, but I'm not Plato. If you were looking for an opponent for that kind of thing, well, sorry to say your search must continue.
-Wind
We've concluded that the leadership boards can be used as a means of identifying general patterns and or issues relevant to balance discussion. But this should be done with extreme caution. For example, just because the PE is the least played faction does not necessarily mean they are underpowered. The problem lies in confounding factors; we never know what actually causes what.
That said, using this data in combination with observations and game statistics is the best way to proceed in any in-depth balance analysis.
PQ
