Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tri3

To BARC or Not To BARC, that is the question

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

I went 2-1 at my prime, using two. And it would have been 3-0 but for a tactical mistake not tied to unit choice. So, objectively, I know it’s good from actual play.

Yeah, I get it, you’re prejudiced against it and won’t change your mind until the groupthink moves over. It just makes you stubborn and wrong.

It's funny how when other people talk about their large amounts of anecdotal experiences, you demand data, and when tournament organizers provide you with data you basically complain that it's not a peer-reviewed study with a massive scope. However, you accept your experience at that single Prime event as "objective" fact. Amazing, and yet, unsurprising.

 

Edit: I'd like to add that I like the Airspeeder and think that it's a lot more viable with the points change and errata, but I'd never try to argue that it's as viciously cutthroat efficient as TTs or Shoreline.

Edited by arnoldrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@arnoldrew
"It's funny how when other people talk about their large amounts of anecdotal experiences, you demand data, and when tournament organizers provide you with data you basically complain that it's not a peer-reviewed study with a massive scope. However, you accept your experience at that single Prime event as "objective" fact. Amazing, and yet, unsurprising.

Edit: I'd like to add that I like the Airspeeder and think that it's a lot more viable with the points change and errata, but I'd never try to argue that it's as viciously cutthroat efficient as TTs or Shoreline."

The assertion was that "FFG dropped it by 30 points and people STILL don't take it in a competitive environment", full stop.
R3dReVenge is claiming that the absence of evidence proves something; that's a basic fallacy of logic.

I literally just falsified that by stating that, in point of fact, I had, and I performed well with it.
Furthermore, there's huge a distinction between claiming something isn't good 'because it was not used' and claiming something is good 'because it was used...AND it performed well'. At the end of the day, R3dReVenge's bias isn't data-driven.

As for the data, I can't count the things that didn't happen, and if my only data on the T-47 is literally the times I've run it, because I never see anyone else run it, and other tournaments don't collect data on, then guess what, that's the data set. My critique on the collection of past tournaments is that it's usually been limited only to the top 8 competitors, which doesn't tell you anything at all about: A) What was entered, B) What those top 8 actually played against, and thus did well against. That prohibits drawing conclusions about what performed well and what didn't. (For obvious reasons, of course: if your pool begins with 90% of one unit, and ends with 90% of that unit....it doesn't mean it's good, it just means it performed as expected. But you can't say one way or the other if you don't know what the starting pools are! Only a careless fool would draw a conclusion based on literally nothing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...