Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fire_Hive

Survey Says...

Quality vs Quantity  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. Quantity or Quality?

    • Quantity?
      11
    • Quality?
      52


Recommended Posts

Answer the poll, no questions asked. Don't necessarily need/want a discussion over this, I just want to know what the community thinks (by answering the poll).

 

Thank you for your time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well.... your asking a group of highly skilled players who often carry hard what do you think....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deepgift, the quality player, has the ability to win a 1v15 when standing alone against incompetent players, who have numerical superiority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only an idiot approaches this question in terms of absolutes. You have to find the break point of when the additional quality will produce a given quantity too low to matter. So no answer to your silly question :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well.... your asking a group of highly skilled players who often carry hard what do you think....

 

 

deepgift, the quality player, has the ability to win a 1v15 when standing alone against incompetent players, who have numerical superiority.

 

 

it was rhetorical XD,

 

my bad for not *sarcasm it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws

 

Quantity trumps.

 


With firearms engaging each other directly with aimed shooting from a distance, they can attack multiple targets and can receive fire from multiple directions. The rate of attrition now depends only on the number of weapons shooting. Lanchester determined that the power of such a force is proportional not to the number of units it has, but to the square of the number of units. This is known as Lanchester's Square Law.

 

This actually has huge implications for basic WoT metagame. That's why a group of 5 tanks will defeat group of 3 tanks coming out almost unscatched from the encounter, instead of having just 2 tanks alive.

 

Because the differences go with square it means that you need to have enormous amount of quality to beat even a small increase in quantity. Therefore you need to pick enemies out 1 by 1. And that's why the individual player skill differences don't count that much in tournament level gameplay (obv 45% baddies will lose to 60% team but 58% team vs 63% team has good chances of winning if their FC is better or they happen to perform exact countertactic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was kinda refering to posting, if you guys prefer quantity of posts or a post that has quality. But from what the discussion has brought up in terms of combat, quantity > quality. Interesting discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quantity.

 

remember black hawk down? elite rangers, no matter how elite they were, suffered great loses from Somalis though armed with AK-47s and RPGs they all doesn't have any idea of tactical combat and just relied on swarming the rangers from all directions. 

 

in terms of ratio, quantity trumps. but when we talk about the end game, quality eventually gets defeated by quantity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws

 

Quantity trumps.

 

 

 

This actually has huge implications for basic WoT metagame. That's why a group of 5 tanks will defeat group of 3 tanks coming out almost unscatched from the encounter, instead of having just 2 tanks alive.

 

Because the differences go with square it means that you need to have enormous amount of quality to beat even a small increase in quantity. Therefore you need to pick enemies out 1 by 1. And that's why the individual player skill differences don't count that much in tournament level gameplay (obv 45% baddies will lose to 60% team but 58% team vs 63% team has good chances of winning if their FC is better or they happen to perform exact countertactic).

 

You're ignoring quality all together with that assessment, which is why you're wrong. Quality is a force multiplier. Ergo, at a given quality, a force of 5 counts as a force of 6. It's why numerically inferior forces can beat numerically superior forces. That being said, quality in terms of training instead of just equipment, is more likely to participate in favorable engagements where they can attain local numerical superiority. If we use as vague a term as just "Quality", then the higher the quality, the better the force is able to use any advantages it is presented (Terrain, weather, localized superiority) and the better it is able to offset it's disadvantages.

 

Now, you aren't completely wrong. I'm not enough of an expert to tell you whether or not Lanchester holds true, but assuming it does, even small changes in quality can make drastic effects by increasing your own damage per unit and simultaneously decreasing the enemy damage per unit. Add in qaulity's ability to increase the odds of favorable engagements, and the scale shifts even further by reducing the effective number of the enemy at any given time. Winning isn't about having the most numbers, it's about getting there the fastest with the mostest. Utilizing higher quality, you can crush a numerically superior force by forcing many smaller scale engagements where your smaller force holds not only the advantage of quality, but quantity. Notice that if you don't have a substantial superiority in equipment, quality generally wins by forcing a localized superiority in numbers, hence, quality wins by bringing quality AND quantity to the table. So you're still somewhat right, that quantity indeed plays a large factor.

 

Ah, but if quality is so great, why does anyone do quantity? Because there are trade offs. The entire concept exists because you can't have both. You have to decide which is a better use of your limited resources. Quantity is, as they say, a quality all it's own. Numerical superiority, when you can effectively bring it to bare, trumps quality pretty hard. You need a massive disparity in quality to lose. The more you have, the more you can afford to lose. The numerically inferior force has to force favorable engagements every time. You need only force a favorable engagement once. The interaction of quality and quantity really is far too indepth to make any sort of bold sweeping statement such as "Quantity is better" or "Quality is better". The only absolute is, you always want more of both. 

 

 

remember black hawk down? elite rangers, no matter how elite they were, suffered great loses from Somalis though armed with AK-47s and RPGs they all doesn't have any idea of tactical combat and just relied on swarming the rangers from all directions.

 

One, that was an utterly lopsided engagement. 5k on what, a hundred? Even then, quality managed to minimize their disadvantages. If you call that "great losses" I don't know what the hell you're smoking. 18 dead Americans. 3 died in the first helicopter that was shot down, 2 in the second (with a third dying defending the aircraft). Add in the two Delta Force that threw themselves into a suicidal defense, and that's 8 of the 18 dead right there. Consider that the official number of dead Somali was given by the SNA itself as 315 (likely under-reported, but we'll just run with this number), and I'm wondering where this "great losses" came from. I can certainly understand the viewpoint that any casaulties at all is a bad thing being ex-army myself, but in the cold calculus of war, 18 for 315 when outnumbered 50 to 1 isn't "great losses", it's a fan-fuckin-tastic win. At that exchange rate, you practically couldn't lose a war if you tried. You just tried to advocate quantity by pointing out one of the most well known quality trumps quantity battles. If you're doing that, you could at least point out a battle where the quality actually got it's ass handed to it, like Thermopylae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer a Left Hand to a six pack of Coors.

 

 

On the other hand, my favorite rugby T-shirt is the USAF Women's team one that says:

 

"Stories, not standards." (In rugby, the 'bigger' players tend to wear lower numbers. The rule on the men's team is usually, never bang a chick with a number lower than yours. I've broken that. More than once)

 

So... yeah...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quantity.

 

remember black hawk down? elite rangers, no matter how elite they were, suffered great loses from Somalis though armed with AK-47s and RPGs they all doesn't have any idea of tactical combat and just relied on swarming the rangers from all directions. 

 

in terms of ratio, quantity trumps. but when we talk about the end game, quality eventually gets defeated by quantity.

 

Quality

 

 I see your Black Hawk Down and raise it to

 

The Battle of Rorke's Drift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and just to prove that Quality over Quantity isnt just for British soldiers with Rifles against Zulus with spears I give you the Yom Kippur War Oct 1973 Egypt and Syria vs Israel

 

Egypt 650,000 troops 1,700 Tanks

Syria  150,000 troops 1,200 Tanks

 

Israel 375,000 troops 1,700 Tanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was kinda refering to posting, if you guys prefer quantity of posts or a post that has quality. But from what the discussion has brought up in terms of combat, quantity > quality. Interesting discussion

Well, then you should have said so in the OP instead of left it open. As with all things, it depends. Do I want 10 perfectly new dollar bills or 10 million wrinkled ones? Do I want one perfect hot girlfriend or 10 ugly bitches?

In terms of combat, one will beat the other depends on how much the scale tips towards, so the discussion is also moot. Will a highly trained Marine with an assault gun beat 10 littles angry kids with knifes? Probably. Will he beat 1000 of them charging at him? Unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality and quantity are ratios.

 

 

The higher the quality, the higher the tolerance of quantity before the quantity meets and exceeds quality. 

 

Quality is a singular quantity that is based on a variable value 

Quantity is a variable quantity that is based on a singular value 

 

Quantity is completely dependant on amounts to ascertain equivalent quality. 

 

Quality is completely dependant on value to ascertain equivalent quantity. 

 

 

The scale for quality and quantity completely depends on the Quality scale; Quantity simply uses numbers to gauge quality, but quality is a qualitative measurement, and will be based on whatever values, traits, qualifications, and other desired characteristics exist.

 

 

 

 

In the end, it depends on availability and practicality. And which is cheaper. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 dead guys is like a great loss already given the quality of the rangers. the whole operation was like a tactical defeat that no matter how good their men were, fail decisions lead to disastrous operations. 18 dead men compared to 300+ dead mob is a good ratio for an end, but in a smaller scale like two deltas swarmed by somalis, both of them died, and got defeated by quantity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 dead guys is like a great loss already given the quality of the rangers. the whole operation was like a tactical defeat that no matter how good their men were, fail decisions lead to disastrous operations. 18 dead men compared to 300+ dead mob is a good ratio for an end, but in a smaller scale like two deltas swarmed by somalis, both of them died, and got defeated by quantity. 

 

I'm not sure what to say to this. Tell me, by your seemingly obscenely strict standards, has there ever been a battle that wasn't a defeat? You're right in that everything didn't go as planned, and the loss of the second helicopter can be directly attributed to poor communication between Delta and the Convoy. The entire battle serves as a text book example of things going wrong. Yet, they met their objectives. As much as the shit hit the fan, the raid was a success. The troops showed their superior quality in pulling off what they did. It truly is one of the most lopsided battles I can recall off the top of my head. It really is a definitive example of quality trumping quantity. If it wasn't, there wouldn't have been any troops coming home from that fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tell me, by your seemingly obscenely strict standards,

 

IRL, that's what my friends say about me

 

OnT: The raid was a success but the shit hit the fan as you said. I gotta have to say that both fields have their own points and quality for sure defeats quantity. If we talk about perfect quality, yes theoretically a battle can be flawlessly won. But that's a very rare case and can be only seen i think on Hollywood 

 

In isolated scenarios, for sure quality kills quantity. Put it in a larger picture, quantity can be stretched as far as infinity as possible. As one guy said here, it's all about how many we want "quantity" to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted quantity.

I would settle for 2 good things over 1 very good thing,but not 5 bad things over 1 very good thing.

Though alot matters on what things we are choosing over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're ignoring quality all together with that assessment, which is why you're wrong. Quality is a force multiplier. Ergo, at a given quality, a force of 5 counts as a force of 6. It's why numerically inferior forces can beat numerically superior forces. That being said, quality in terms of training instead of just equipment, is more likely to participate in favorable engagements where they can attain local numerical superiority. If we use as vague a term as just "Quality", then the higher the quality, the better the force is able to use any advantages it is presented (Terrain, weather, localized superiority) and the better it is able to offset it's disadvantages.

Now, you aren't completely wrong. I'm not enough of an expert to tell you whether or not Lanchester holds true, but assuming it does, even small changes in quality can make drastic effects by increasing your own damage per unit and simultaneously decreasing the enemy damage per unit. Add in qaulity's ability to increase the odds of favorable engagements, and the scale shifts even further by reducing the effective number of the enemy at any given time. Winning isn't about having the most numbers, it's about getting there the fastest with the mostest. Utilizing higher quality, you can crush a numerically superior force by forcing many smaller scale engagements where your smaller force holds not only the advantage of quality, but quantity. Notice that if you don't have a substantial superiority in equipment, quality generally wins by forcing a localized superiority in numbers, hence, quality wins by bringing quality AND quantity to the table. So you're still somewhat right, that quantity indeed plays a large factor.

Ah, but if quality is so great, why does anyone do quantity? Because there are trade offs. The entire concept exists because you can't have both. You have to decide which is a better use of your limited resources. Quantity is, as they say, a quality all it's own. Numerical superiority, when you can effectively bring it to bare, trumps quality pretty hard. You need a massive disparity in quality to lose. The more you have, the more you can afford to lose. The numerically inferior force has to force favorable engagements every time. You need only force a favorable engagement once. The interaction of quality and quantity really is far too indepth to make any sort of bold sweeping statement such as "Quantity is better" or "Quality is better". The only absolute is, you always want more of both.

One, that was an utterly lopsided engagement. 5k on what, a hundred? Even then, quality managed to minimize their disadvantages. If you call that "great losses" I don't know what the hell you're smoking. 18 dead Americans. 3 died in the first helicopter that was shot down, 2 in the second (with a third dying defending the aircraft). Add in the two Delta Force that threw themselves into a suicidal defense, and that's 8 of the 18 dead right there. Consider that the official number of dead Somali was given by the SNA itself as 315 (likely under-reported, but we'll just run with this number), and I'm wondering where this "great losses" came from. I can certainly understand the viewpoint that any casaulties at all is a bad thing being ex-army myself, but in the cold calculus of war, 18 for 315 when outnumbered 50 to 1 isn't "great losses", it's a fan-fuckin-tastic win. At that exchange rate, you practically couldn't lose a war if you tried. You just tried to advocate quantity by pointing out one of the most well known quality trumps quantity battles. If you're doing that, you could at least point out a battle where the quality actually got it's ass handed to it, like Thermopylae.

these loses also deprive the new recruits of the advantage of they would get from training with the now dead soldier. Quality would take a hit all the way down the pike. So that being said, if these quality solders were alive the information and training being passed on would multiply up or down proportionately creating a increased advantage or disadvantage in outcome.

Going back to tanks, this means that the better quality a player that is lost and how far into the game that player is in the game before he is lost will exponentially be felt. For example, lose three red players at the beginning of a match that has 2 purple players on the same team the likely outcome does not change much, But loose 1 purple player at the beginning of a match and the ability to carry a team takes a 50% hit. Only its deeper than that because the second purple will loose more than 50% of his chance to carry the match with only substandard players available to help. So I say Quality over Quantity because of force multiplication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality

 

 I see your Black Hawk Down and raise it to

 

The Battle of Rorke's Drift

And I raise you George Pattons, drive to Bastogne. If he would have been killed a Utah Beach who would of then saved 101 from the Germans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...