there are a lot of threads currently (and have always been) on how themeta in armada is broken and how to fix it.

the idea behind these posts is "we all know how X/Y/Z is broken " or the more subtle "had too much of an impact". some posts are not rant posts but propose fixes to these problems.

to that end, please. if you want us to take you seriously, offer evidence (statistical evidence, not anecdotal evidence) on why you are right in the way you read the meta.

example:

"squadrons are too powerful right now, everyone knows it"

incorrect argument. provides no evidence. statistical evidence: there are regionals lists out there that have finished top 4/top 2, some even winners, and contain just 4-6 squadrons as a fighter scren, some very few with no squadrons.

"large ships have become useless now"

incorrect argument. statistical evidence shows a drop of 1-5% in overall large ships usage, which is nothing, and also shows a very good presence of large ships in top 4 compared to the attendance of lists with large ships.

"flotillas are so powerful. most of the regionals winners have not one, but two flotillas in their lists, and almost no regionals top 4 has zero flotillas". correct argument. provides evidence. we can now start arguing on why i agree or disagree with you. for example, i may provide that support ships are thematicaly necessary to all fleets and their presence should be the case, or that flotillas are just there due to few, if any, other supportive options, or claim that flotillas drop in usage as more and more people build accuracy-generating lists. i could agree or disagree, but i'd be taking you seriously.

the moment i see a thread named "X/Y/Z is too powerful clearly, i lose to that/win with that everytime so heres my rant and/or proposal to fix it" i start laughing at the joke of a post that provides no arguments other than anecdotal evidence/local meta. please understand it.

Ben needs no evidence.

Ben is evidence.

You sound like me teaching History.

Apparently, Stalin was like well evil innit. Like everyone just like knows that anyway.

Agreed.

Will now start a trend of asking for evidence in each of those kind of posts!

I really hope this forum doesn't turn in one of those places where you have to cite every sentence, and dicussions fall into "source please".

There is value in opinions.

Just teach yourself some critical thinking and don't take everything as given.

Armada is dead!

Because!

The Raider is broken!!

Now let's argue. I'll begin:

1. Maybe is not "the" raider rather than "my" raider.

2. Is not broken as "overpowered" rather than "literally" broken.

3. It was not Ben's fault and not mine of course. The daughter of my friend just put too much enthusiasm when she put her weight on the corner of the table. It was not her fault either (she is just 1 year old).

So the raider is broken but at least Armada still alive.

Whilst it is good practice to give sound, evidential based arguments, in practice you can't expect it to happen. Even world politics doesn't work like that so you can't expect a forum like this one to do it.

Those threads generate discussion at least which keeps its ticking along nicely.

The Raider is broken!!

Now let's argue. I'll begin:

1. Maybe is not "the" raider rather than "my" raider.

2. Is not broken as "overpowered" rather than "literally" broken.

3. It was not Ben's fault and not mine of course. The daughter of my friend just put too much enthusiasm when she put her weight on the corner of the table. It was not her fault either (she is just 1 year old).

So the raider is broken but at least Armada still alive.

I don't believe you, where is your evidence.

Whilst it is good practice to give sound, evidential based arguments, in practice you can't expect it to happen. Even world politics doesn't work like that so you can't expect a forum like this one to do it.

Has Armada finally entered the post-truth era?

I refuse to believe any evidence until it can be proven that it wasn't planted by Ben.

The Raider is broken!!

Now let's argue. I'll begin:

1. Maybe is not "the" raider rather than "my" raider.

2. Is not broken as "overpowered" rather than "literally" broken.

3. It was not Ben's fault and not mine of course. The daughter of my friend just put too much enthusiasm when she put her weight on the corner of the table. It was not her fault either (she is just 1 year old).

So the raider is broken but at least Armada still alive.

I don't believe you, where is your evidence.

I would show you a photo but I have no idea how to do this here XD

Sigh.

This is rampant not only on the forums but pretty much elsewhere in society.

Oh the joys of having graded college papers...

I really hope this forum doesn't turn in one of those places where you have to cite every sentence, and dicussions fall into "source please".

There is value in opinions.

Just teach yourself some critical thinking and don't take everything as given.

When we're discussing factual things, opinions have little value outside of the person having them. For example, was recently of the opinion that black dice as anti-fighter were useless. Turns out, I was wrong. Black dice are awesome as anti-squadron.

Of course, if something make you unhappy, that sucks,but we have left the realm of the factual, and moved into your head. That's the place that opinions matter. How do we feel about the game. Are we enjoying it. Are we having fun. If a ship or strategy is not fun to play, or to play against, well, that's just your opinion, man.

But to claim something is or is not "broken" requires statistics, or at least a demonstration.

The problem here is that anything that argues either against the meta or for the meta is lopsided due to the inherent hive/herd mind required for meta's to form in the first place.

Two world champs in a row have won from "non-conventional-at-the-time" lists while stomping the pants off of "common-at-the-time" meta lists.

Just saying.

Sometimes the statistics are irrelevant...kind of like politics and polls.

The problem here is that anything that argues either against the meta or for the meta is lopsided due to the inherent hive/herd mind required for meta's to form in the first place.

Two world champs in a row have won from "non-conventional-at-the-time" lists while stomping the pants off of "common-at-the-time" meta lists.

Just saying.

Sometimes the statistics are irrelevant...kind of like politics and polls.

I doubt FFG would feel the need to change the rules without statistical evidence to back up any of the claims you make about flotillas, and they won't do it because you ask for it. The only way to get them to change the rules would be to convince or show everyone that life boats are so crazy OP and broken that they completely ruin the game. Which they don't. And one of those world champ lists had a flotilla killer to deal with the meta.

1) Anecdote != data.

2) There is not a large enough body of 'evidence' in Armada to reach a large Sigma certainty.

3) Logic, when applied properly, needs no evidence

4) All forum posts on a forum have an implied "in my opinion" attached to them.

1) Anecdote != data.

2) There is not a large enough body of 'evidence' in Armada to reach a large Sigma certainty.

3) Logic, when applied properly, needs no evidence

4) All forum posts on a forum have an implied "in my opinion" attached to them.

Seconding all this stuff.

This is also not a recent issue.

The problem here is that anything that argues either against the meta or for the meta is lopsided due to the inherent hive/herd mind required for meta's to form in the first place.

Two world champs in a row have won from "non-conventional-at-the-time" lists while stomping the pants off of "common-at-the-time" meta lists.

Just saying.

Sometimes the statistics are irrelevant...kind of like politics and polls.

It's because there's a "counter" to everything. When the meta gets too focused on one thing, someone skilled at the game just needs to take a step back and not kowtow to the meta but find the fleet that counters the meta. This is why large beefy ships like Britt's in the MI Regional are doing well, not because "Big ships are back" but because big ships are able to one shot the activation war.

Not to say that big ships haven't gotten some love in the recent wave.

This is rampant not only on the forums but pretty much elsewhere in society.

Oh the joys of having graded college papers...

What subject? I am a history TA at a tier one institute and grading papers is...enlightening.

1) Anecdote != data.

2) There is not a large enough body of 'evidence' in Armada to reach a large Sigma certainty.

3) Logic, when applied properly, needs no evidence

Good Luck with these.

I spent a good portion of a year championing it.

Never again.

there are a lot of threads currently (and have always been) on how themeta in armada is broken and how to fix it.

the idea behind these posts is "we all know how X/Y/Z is broken " or the more subtle "had too much of an impact". some posts are not rant posts but propose fixes to these problems.

to that end, please. if you want us to take you seriously, offer evidence (statistical evidence, not anecdotal evidence) on why you are right in the way you read the meta.

example:

"squadrons are too powerful right now, everyone knows it"

incorrect argument. provides no evidence. statistical evidence: there are regionals lists out there that have finished top 4/top 2, some even winners, and contain just 4-6 squadrons as a fighter scren, some very few with no squadrons.

"large ships have become useless now"

incorrect argument. statistical evidence shows a drop of 1-5% in overall large ships usage, which is nothing, and also shows a very good presence of large ships in top 4 compared to the attendance of lists with large ships.

"flotillas are so powerful. most of the regionals winners have not one, but two flotillas in their lists, and almost no regionals top 4 has zero flotillas". correct argument. provides evidence. we can now start arguing on why i agree or disagree with you. for example, i may provide that support ships are thematicaly necessary to all fleets and their presence should be the case, or that flotillas are just there due to few, if any, other supportive options, or claim that flotillas drop in usage as more and more people build accuracy-generating lists. i could agree or disagree, but i'd be taking you seriously.

the moment i see a thread named "X/Y/Z is too powerful clearly, i lose to that/win with that everytime so heres my rant and/or proposal to fix it" i start laughing at the joke of a post that provides no arguments other than anecdotal evidence/local meta. please understand it.

Please use grammar.

Also, have you met mankind? Evidence is the right up there with math and science. You know, things some people say, "That there teachen' lady wasted muh time with."

You sound like me teaching History.

Apparently, Stalin was like well evil innit. Like everyone just like knows that anyway.

This is rampant not only on the forums but pretty much elsewhere in society.

Oh the joys of having graded college papers...

I've often thought I'd have been an excellent teacher. You both make me glad I didn't follow that career.

You sound like me teaching History.

Apparently, Stalin was like well evil innit. Like everyone just like knows that anyway.

At what level do you teach? I taught HS Western Civ for years before moving on to get PhD.

The problem here is that anything that argues either against the meta or for the meta is lopsided due to the inherent hive/herd mind required for meta's to form in the first place.

Two world champs in a row have won from "non-conventional-at-the-time" lists while stomping the pants off of "common-at-the-time" meta lists.

Just saying.

Sometimes the statistics are irrelevant...kind of like politics and polls.

I doubt FFG would feel the need to change the rules without statistical evidence to back up any of the claims you make about flotillas, and they won't do it because you ask for it. The only way to get them to change the rules would be to convince or show everyone that life boats are so crazy OP and broken that they completely ruin the game. Which they don't. And one of those world champ lists had a flotilla killer to deal with the meta.

What claims? I just said I think they're a joke lol. Does it completely ruin the game to sit your admiral in an unarmed ship in the corner of the map? No. It does subtract from it, though. That other thread got hijacked by a bunch of people arguing with each other, partially because you're pretty aggressive with your opinion and aren't willing to even consider the other side's point of view, much less possible compromises.