I’ll never let his “counter-claim” to me calling out corsairs as highly competent dogfighters (they are: they’re fast, they got very powerful engines and basically don’t stall. In fact, without instructor and autotrim you still can’t stall them because their elevator is badly modelled and they can’t over-pull their AoA) while being oppressive CAS platforms (multiple 1000 lbs bombs and deadly rockets) being that the “wellington out-turns the french corsair.”
Which is a perspective that probably explains most of is aircraft use issues (turns in a flat circle at low speeds rather than use out of plane maneuvering)
The logical validity of a position should not depend on stats.
Someone with good stats should not be allowed to get away with a bad argument, and a good argument shouldnt be discounted because the person making it has bad stats.
By giving importance to stats, you distract from logic, which is a waste of time.
That’s like I say vehicle X is brokenly OP while having 0.3 K/D in it. That doesn’t make any sense.
If you are a bad player your POV can easily be skewed due to that, just like many Silvers in CS still think P90 is some OP weapon.
Bad players are bad because they don’t understand the game, so their opinions are automatically of less importance as they clearly can’t see the full picture.
I’m not talking about opinions, I’m talking about logical arguments.
Furthermore, even in the case of opinions it is more effective to counter with logic than stats.
Take your CS example, when a Silver claims the P90 is OP, and you counter by explaining how it is not OP, that has more impact than simply dismissing the claim because of their rank.
Problem is that a lot of people with bad-average level of skill (and thus game knowledge) think that they are making a logical argument, while they are just giving opinions.
Stat card is a really nice tool to show these people the truth.
Take the Russian bias crowd for example, that constantly complains about russian tanks being OP. They think they are making logical arguments, but they are just giving (bad) opinions.
I care about WW2 more or less. Occasionally I like modern stuff as “ooh pretty!” or “let’s see if I can land X plane on a carrier with sim controls” but otherwise WW2 is a more interesting environment to me for both tanks and aircraft (korean war is up there, but korean brackets are compressed and are generally a mess of balancing for aircraft)
At best its a convenient shortcut, at worst it makes you look petty and incapable of countering their argument.
It is more effective to explain why their arguments/opinions are wrong, than it is to say “you have bad stats so you’re wrong.”
One example I’ve seen before from inexperienced players is the claim that low BR Swedish vehicles are OP, when the truth is that the majority of players don’t pick Sweden as their first nation, so those playing it at low BR tend to have more experience than other low BR players. Explaining that fact is objectively the better counter to the false claim.
Chances of you making a logical argument drop with your skill level.
This is a problem of self reflection.
If I was Silver I’d probably stop myself from giving out any opinions or perceived arguments as it’s clear to me that my game knowledge is seriously lacking.
Just by watching some higher level gameplay it’s easy to deduct P90 isn’t anything special outside of Silver.
Also, saying vehicle X is busted while playing like crap in it is even more egregious example than P90.
I have been in more of those arguments than I can even count. There is no proving these people wrong, it just turns in an argument going in circles because these people really believe that what they think is purely objective and logical.
The T-90M is a perfect example of this.
Pulling the stats up is not because I enjoy stat shaming people (well sometimes I do, but that is a whole different argument). It’s a last resort to show these people themself that they clearly lack the game knowledge to come to that conclusion, let alone to try and school other people on why their’s is the right conclusion.
Sometimes it’s not about convincing the person you’re arguing with that their wrong, its about convincing the people who are reading the discussion.
Certainly there are plenty of stubborn and indignant people who are convinced they are right no matter what, and to that point if logic does not convince them, then bringing up stats wont either.
You can also just explain why they aren’t making any sense.
It is possible for a person with bad stats to make a good argument, and it is possible for someone with good stats to have a bad opinion.
It is not possible for something that doesn’t make sense to hold up to the scrutiny of a sensible explanation.
In other words, while “don’t trust this guy, his stats are bad!” might work most of the time, “don’t trust this guy, his argument makes no sense and here’s why it makes no sense” works every time.
That explanation you might have is also relying on personal preferences in most cases and is far from objective, especially if lots of pros and cons are included.
You might try and reason with him by comparing other peers to that vehicle. This isn’t perfect nor objective as something doesn’t need to matter to all people in the same way.
This is why you commonly see arguments like: “reload/pen/optics/gun handling don’t matter”.
You also often see people fixating on one thing only, like armor, and they aren’t changing their minds.
I don’t think that bad players will have any new, insightful information that good players didn’t already figure out.
Extending to aircraft, control style and way you use it also makes a massive difference.
Talking about a plane’s ability to generate energy or retain control at absurdly low speeds by virtue of being a carrier aircraft flies over the head of those who just press and hold S on their keyboard 100 meters off deck and declare a wellington out-turns their F4U-4/7.
Technically the wellington outturns the corsair if the corsair forgets it has one of the most powerful engines around and introduces the slightest bit of verticality to their combat where weedwhacker wellington can’t follow without falling out of the sky from losing all its speed.
You can try to explain to someone all the principles of dogfight geometry and energy fighting principles and they’ll ignore all of it and keep insisting “america plane bad.”
If that’s the case then it’s at least more worthy of a further discussion that has a better chance of being insightful than comparing stat cards.
As we established, it’s not always about changing the mind of the person you’re talking to.
I’m talking about possibility, not likelihood.
If you’re a soldier tasked with defending a position, do you want a gun that is unlikely to fail, or a gun that cannot possibly fail? Surely the gun that cannot possibly fail is better.