ffs guys, get back to topic.
You should really hold back your horses a bit.
These are loadout rates of top players and you know it. If they are in the loadout, they are a competitive choice. Describing this as "popularity" is not far fetched at all.
Apparently Vipper's scores represent the average ranking. Not the greatest but an okay metric and easy to read. Summing up game modes makes as much sense as not summing them up, it just depends on what you want to show. And while Vipper failed some important information, he at least stated that it is across all modes. The raw data does not show that at all.
Therefore, the data should merely have been summed up and presented in the same very same metric. You yourself have pointed that out in a different thread.
Also, Vipper presents it differently, she even uses the word "popularity rating". What you say makes sense, but it completely differs to what Vipper says. |
Can you forget about the calculations already and just look at the 1v1 to 4v4 pages on the link I posted?!?
If you look carefully you will see the two mentioned commanders on the bottom of the list in each category.
Jeez...
Yeah, if you look carefully, the numerical values data and explanation that Vipper did are different than that it is RAW presented on the page. Where does it show "popularity" for instance? What does "popularity" mean? It's not even a ratio. Vipper took someone else's data, without providing a source (plagiarism), modified the data for some reason, then presented it as if it is her data. The source page does everything better than she did above. I don't disagree with the data, I disagree with what Vipper did there. There is absolutely no reason to divide or sum up the values. The raw data shows it all much better. |
|
No, it's not.
There is a better overview of the data from the page that you linked and not from some weird confusing calculations without any reason to (it's not even a ratio or popularity value, or even a T test or Cross check) that Vipper did.
edit: Digging into the values, it's clear that it's commanders equipped, and not commanders played... so Vipper doesn't even show popularity! |
|
It's not even a ratio. And summing up game modes does not make sense at all. The data from the page make more sense than any data she modified. Summing up is irrelevant, as it will only show biased stats. |
https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1614556800/4v4/british
It can't be, because the numbers she presents are different to what it is on the source. Why proclaim that it is her data (adapted without sound method) when actually just posting the raw data from the source would have suffice. It makes certain commanders look better/worse for some reason that only she chose. It's once again, very misleading! |
|
I think these numbers and scores are very arbitrary and very misleading. What do your numbers mean? What is your popularity scale? How did you get to these? What is your source? Why did you decide to modify the values? Can you tell us what kind of maths that you have applied to these numbers you are presenting to us to come to these conclusions? (edited) |
Popularity across all modes:
Mobile Assault Regiment 8.5
Royal Artillery Regiment 8.25
Royal Engineer Regiment 6.25
Commando Regiment 5.75
Vanguard Operations Regiment 5.75
Special Weapons Regiment 4
Lend Lease Assault Regiment 3.75
Advanced Emplacement Regiment 1.5
Tactical Support Regiment 1.5
Note had bad AER and STR score across all modes.
These numbers are very arbitrary and very misleading. What do your numbers mean? What is your popularity scale? How did you get to these? What is your source? Why did you decide to modify the values? |
Popularity across all modes:
Urban Assault Company 8.25
Airborne Company 8
Infantry Company 6.75
Heavy Cavalry Company 5.75
Tactical Support Company 5.25
Recon Support Company 3.5
Mechanized Company 3
Armor Company 2.75
Rifle Company 1.75
Source on these? What is your popularity rating? Your numbers look very made up, modified, misleading, and different from what it is actually. |
|
What YOU say is clear. And I agree with you I don't want to see the m1919 on other commanders, but Vipper wants it gone from everywhere because axis doesn't have such infantry upgrade. She made a very clear point about that.
Off topic : even marvel has the popular 'no more mutants' comic event if you want to read more about the use of the word 'no more' in popular US culture. |
I'm sorry but that's bollocks. It means "no longer" or "nothing further", according to the Oxford dictionary.
Thanks for checking the dictionary. It clearly says "no more" means exist no longer, never again (etc) in the same dictionary. You need to check the full page of the proper dictionary and not the first hit that google spews out. https://www.lexico.com/definition/no_more
Also, "LMG no further" equally means "no more LMGS" which means "LMGs exist no longer"
Vipper and her follow up, before changing her opinion, clearly and without doubt said she wanted LMGs gone from every USF troops because Axis can't have them. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
