[SUGGESTION] Tie PvP Experience to Point Results

[Nixxe]

Your "argument" is purely anecdotal https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal. Here are some examples:



The conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premise.



Again, the conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premise.

We're dealing with inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. By definition, inductive reasoning is invalid, but that doesn't make it worthless. For instance, science is based entirely on inductive reasoning, while math, aside from statistics, is based on deductive reasoning. So of course the premises don't necessarily lead to the conclusion. They aren't intended to. They are intended to strongly suggest the conclusion is the case, the exact strength with which they do so depending on the specific instance. Indeed, deductive reasoning is rarely able to be applied in any useful fashion in our day to day lives, as typically it doesn't tell us anything new. For instance, most syllogisms simply spell out things people would generally intuitively understand if they're aware of the premises. Most of the reasoning we use is inductive in nature. Since all inductive reasoning is invalid and depends on cogency rather than soundness, it must be evaluated for the specific content, not merely the form, and therefore saying that the premises do not necessarily lead to the conclusion is a waste of everyone's time, unless perhaps you need to remind someone to entertain other suggestions. I am not failing to entertain other suggestions. I am failing to see anything else more plausible than that there is not even distribution between all three GCs under the current game structure. Indeed, as the conditions are not right for even distribution, it would be virtually miraculous if there were.

As for the specific fallacy, the issue isn't that it's an anecdote at all. The fallacy they're calling "anecdotal" is actually a hasty generalization, which is when you are too quick to jump to conclusions after a single event. However, this is not what I am doing and indeed my argument is statistical in nature, being based on the ever growing improbability that my result is simply RNG, especially when taken together with the fact that the game setup should not be expected to produce an even distribution. If it really doesn't matter what GC you are on, then all GCs should have a 33.33333% win rate and my 40% win rate should eventually converge with that, as per the Law of Large Numbers. Less competent persons who seem to have neither even a rudimentary understanding of statistics nor the ability to do more than attribute anything they don't understand to RNG, are instead disregarding my arguments in favor of repeating that I must be wrong over and over and over.

If I take my two sets of trials (ie Freelancer w/l and Maelstrom w/l) and put them in a contingency table and run a χ2 test, my p-value is 0.0262. By convention, anything under 0.05 is generally considered significant, though you can select a bit lower or higher based on your own needs. Provided this win rate is maintained, the p-value will continue to shrink, until it's even less than 1. As this shrinkage occurs, the likelihood that it is merely RNG likewise decreases. It is of course possible that's merely RNG, but given the game design, we shouldn't expect even distribution to begin with, so it's a bit strange to see everyone insist that it's the only possible explanation, even without any statistics whatsoever of their own to back up that contention.

So all the good people are in Maelstrom right now then? And if they all switch out to the Flames tonight you'll still win as much, right? What if they all only start queueing Freelancer? What about strong premades that don't even get to choose which team they'll be on? What if your team is filled with bots consistently for days?

I'm not calling you out but that's spoken like someone who really didn't PvP before, so you're not aware just how much GC imbalance impacted queues. I win far more than I lose, and I always queue Freelancer. What GC I'm on doesn't matter even remotely as much as whether what team I land on will focus objectives or players properly, communicate, coordinate, and actively play and play well. Neither my strategy, nor ability changes purely because of what GC I'm on, and neither should yours or anyone's.

Your post reads like it was written by someone who neither understands my argument nor even basic statistics. Like no kidding what your team does is what matters the most. That's my entire point: Your team is what matters and at least on Aether, most of the cooperative and productive teams seem to be flying the Maelstrom flag, whatever the reason may be. If those players all start playing for Flames, I'd expect Flames' win rate to likely go up accordingly. You seem to have this bizarre idea that I think the increased win rate is an intrinsic property of the GC, rather than a product of who happens to play for the GC generally speaking, which is just a baffling way to interpret anything I've said.