(Blarg D Impaler @ Jul. 26 2007,19:45)
QUOTE
I'll argue pretty hard in favor of my opinions and beliefs, but I have no problem changing my mind, especially if I have detected that I made a mistake or if somebody shows me proof. (Engineer's motto: In God we trust, everybody else must show data.) The problem with these boards is that aside from a pile of playtest reports that coalesce into a solid consensus nobody puts forth data or proof. It's all opinion, a lot of it in my opinion poorly founded or fueled by hidden agenda.
Blarg that is a bit over the top I think. Accusations of 'hidden agendas' sounds just a little paranoid. Relevant details can and are put into the public arena for debate by anyone who wants to and reasoned argument can convince people here. By far the majority of EA players just want a better game.
Also when it comes to criticising other peoples opinions it is worth considering how well your own stacks up. I find it ironic that you chose one tiny fragment of data (vindicators vs pred destructors (another poor tank!) in a single context), and based your opinion on that while ignoring a host of extremely relevant contextual factors and comparisons of the sort E&C immediately highlighted.
Agreed that being able to change ones mind on the basis of evidence is a virtue... but you want to convince me - show me the meta-analysis. (maybe the Clinical Neuropsychologist's motto, and we wouldn't exempt a God hypothesis from that demand either).
Frankly peoples opinions (which are data analysis by billions of neurons) after playtesting experience are worth more than an extremely limited and selective statistical 'theory-hammer' comparison that ignores the most relevant information. Yes as someone trained as a scientist-practitioner, I'd love to have detailed empirical data of all relevant cases and be able to stick those into meta-analysis software so it can spit out a points value. However the reality will always fall far short of that in wargames rules development (unless we were to get an absolutely massive research grant and I don't see that happening!).
Mind you... E&C actually appears to be doing pretty well on the meta-analysis 
- despite attempts by Hena to restrict access to relevant information... 
(Just out of interest - every new marine player I've seen has immediately compared vindicators to whirlwinds on the basis of bang for your buck, and found the choice pretty obvious - even with discounted vindicators. This opinion is only reinforced by actual game experience, and is usually accompanied by colourful descriptive language regarding the worth of vindicators - and expressions of regret over having to leave cool models in the box).
I'm not seeing a whole lot of love for the extra FF attacks idea. A good thing too as it really wouldn't represent what Demolishers are - ie they don't have a whole lot of shooting, but what shooting there is you really DON'T want to be in the way of...
. 
