The reason why I DIDN'T PLAY closed weapons was because I couldn't, because it was open for a short period, or it was buried in the menu. It definitely was not as highlighted as the open weapon mode, and the wait times, obviously, was longer. "Closed" was COMPETING against the open weapon mode, and that is not the proper way to gather evidence/data.
I mentioned it in another thread, so just briefly - you don't know how the data gathering and methodology was set. You don't know what exactly they measured, how it was measured, when it was measured and also if there were any other conditions, compensations, or data normalization. Basically, you are criticizing something you have absolutely no information about.
I do agree that the situation as you describe may be a recipe for biased data (I mean different menu positions, mode availability, etc.; not the competition as it's a different kind of testing and not also necessarily cases where players tried both modes, depending what exactly you measure), but as I said - you, me, and nobody else knows what methodology was used.
You don't know what exactly they measured, how it was measured, when it was measured and also if there were any other conditions, compensations, or data normalization. Basically, you are criticizing something you have absolutely no information about.
I don't how how it was done exactly, but I do know there was two competing modes to chose, and I know they know how to dl proper research. That is not the best way.
By Data normalization I think you mean any possible data cleaning or removal of confounding factors and noise. That I don't know if or how they did. I just know the article was revealing in how it manipulated the data.
I hope that "it was more popular" was not inferred from the hours played completely ignoring how buried "closed weapons" was in the menu, and how it didn't have the spotlight.
Basically, closed weapon was the alternative, not the norm.
If they tested [closed weapon] frontlines (just a big banner saying Frontlines), [closed weapons] rush, [closed weapons conquest] , [closed weapons] Breakthrough, and "Open Weapons Conquest" instead, it would not matter much what data twisting method they used. No data cleaning would prove otherwise, that open.weapons in this hypothetical scenario, was more.popular.
Above all, I know why I ignored signature weapons and went with Open Weapons: The weapon specialization was barely relevant, and my character was just stronger with open weapons. I could play solo a lot more when friends weren't around, and that is not how Battlefield is supposed to be played.
If a weapon archetype is stronger, OBVIOUSLY, it will be more popular.
