Alfred
Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey quote:
ORIGINAL: Alfred This is hard data from an actual game, not some vanity test which has not taken into account all the relevant variables. And thus is more suspect, not less. Your test is invalid BECAUSE you do not control variables. The question is "What is the effect of the number of aircraft on training?" To test that, you control the OTHER variables and then vary the number of aircraft: 1) Type of Aircraft 2) Number of pilots 3) location of training (weather affects whether training flights occur) 4) leadership rating of commanders 5) experience levels of pilots 6) morale of pilots 7) etc. etc. ALL of the above are controlled for in my test. I am testing the game engine, not some random sampling of groups. And by the way, your percentage of pilots of pilots receiving skill increases vs mine: For bombers 23/200 = 0.115 = 0.115 11.5% For medium bombers: 10/84 = 0.119 = 11.9% My 15 plane squadrons: 28/100 = 0.28 = 0.28 28% Vanity exercise? Grow up and show some scientific method. Do not try to hurl insults at someone that has the audacity to challenge the views of the almighty Alfred. Refute my facts and avoid the personal attacks, k? What rubbish you write about what I posted and then as a free kick insults are thrown in. Typical of someone with the ego of a small planet who simply cannot accept his tests are fundamentally flawed. 1. You cannot properly control because you do not know nor properly understand the variables. 2. You have done no such thing as a valid "scientific test". To do so requires only a single variable input to be tested. Over many iterations. And the entire set of test conditions are fully published so that any one else can replicate exactly the same test. You have not done any of this so don't insult me or any other reader with your self perceived "superior" scientific test. 3. Because your ego is so huge and the need to invalidate me is consuming you misrepresent my post. I presented the results of the game engine. Those results completely and utterly contradict your claims. Which I remind you is the claim that air units with fewer aircraft will train fewer pilots than fully TOE equipped air units. 4. Anyone with a scintilla of understanding knows that in a contest between game engine results and a mickey mouse test bed, the game engine results always trump what the mickey mouse test bed throws up. 5. A good tester, when confronted with what the diametrically opposed outcomes, would go back to his mickey mouse test bed and try to see where they failed. The simple fact of life is that you are one of the numerous reverse engineers who frequent the forum who is incapable of accepting the truth when it is uttered by a dev or by someone with a better mind than yourself. This then makes you envious. Practical players play the game as it is. They are not in a position to play the game in a vacuum divorced from all the externalities that exist in every single situation. I showed what the game engine does. If there was any validity to your mickey mouse test bed which you employed to purportedly show what the game engine does, there would not be such a discrepancy in outcomes. There is no fact for me to further disprove because you have not produced a single fact about how this game engine operates. I show game reality, you show your make believe world. I will repeat it again. Players do not need aircraft inside air units in order to generate pilot training. Air units with 1 or 2 aircraft in them can advance more pilots than air units with 100% TOE. Just as some air units with 100% TOE can also advance more pilots than other air units with a very low TOE%. Show me a single dev comment that shows I am wrong and you are correct. You will not find one; not in the manual, not in the pilot addendum, not in the patch notes, not in any post in any thread in the forum. So on what basis can you sustain your superiority. Constantly my comments get challenged by "reverse engineers" but they always fail, although they never apologise. In one particular 2014 (IIRC) thread after several pages of vehement antagonism against me Symon, in one of his last posts pointed out that I was completely correct. The very next post in that thread came from Symon who wryly noted how quickly silence descended when a dev spoke. Just like the Greek Gods have left Mt Olympus, so have the devs left AE. I am as close as AE players can get to the knowledge of the devs precisely because I closely research what they have posted, and have often provided their source comments for independent verification. You provide ... give me a moment I'll think of something ... really there must be something you do ... Alfred
|