EPTFTF with IdrA (interview) - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitokid
Germany1327 Posts
| ||
|
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
| ||
|
dani`
Netherlands2402 Posts
On July 19 2011 07:17 Trowa127 wrote: I like the Idra interview. What he says about race win statistics is true - you can't use win percentages to justify balance arguments when bad players are playing better players all the time. I still don't buy into the P op thing, but he makes a very valid point. Not really imo. If statistics over like 500+ games say PvZ ~ 50%, then he can not simply "assume" that's because it's always the worse Protoss player playing against a better Zerg. That's kinda ridiculous and sad at the same time. Taking a tournament result and use that one result to talk about balance ("NesTea won GSL, Zerg isn't underpowered") is indeed questionable, I agree with him on that, obviously. He is right when he talks about randomness here and there, but the whole point of statistics is to take a big enough sample size to get rid of that stuff. He is essentially saying he understands the game perfectly and if he says it's imbalanced it is true; even though statistics do not back it up. That's not how it works. | ||
|
EnderCraft
United States1746 Posts
On July 19 2011 07:17 Trowa127 wrote: I like the Idra interview. What he says about race win statistics is true - you can't use win percentages to justify balance arguments when bad players are playing better players all the time. I still don't buy into the P op thing, but he makes a very valid point. I'm going to be blunt like IdrA. IdrA just has a bad PvZ. People like Sheth believe that ZvP is their best match up and have the results to back it up. I believe we have been seeing enough Z win vs P for a while now, to say that the balance is still nearly as skewed as it used to be would be totally wrong in my opinion. | ||
|
Terrifyer
United States338 Posts
| ||
|
ExPresident
United States215 Posts
On July 19 2011 07:29 EnderCraft wrote: I'm going to be blunt like IdrA. IdrA just has a bad PvZ. People like Sheth believe that ZvP is their best match up and have the results to back it up. I believe we have been seeing enough Z win vs P for a while now, to say that the balance is still nearly as skewed as it used to be would be totally wrong in my opinion. I pretty much agree with this. I liked the interview overall tho, it was very well done. I think it was pretty bad move to just say the community 'doesn't understand' or 'get it', however Idra put it when arguing his point on balance. I'm not gonna go overboard on him doing it, but labeling everyone the same isn't the way to go nor accurate. | ||
|
nvs.
Canada3609 Posts
On July 19 2011 07:41 Terrifyer wrote: carmac you are one of the best interviewers ever I like how his questions are just as blunt and honest as Idra's answers. No beating around the bush and such. Well done. | ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On July 19 2011 07:29 EnderCraft wrote: I'm going to be blunt like IdrA. IdrA just has a bad PvZ. People like Sheth believe that ZvP is their best match up and have the results to back it up. I believe we have been seeing enough Z win vs P for a while now, to say that the balance is still nearly as skewed as it used to be would be totally wrong in my opinion. I'm sure he'd admit that ZvP is his worst matchup, even without considering any imbalances that might be present | ||
|
SafeAsCheese
United States4924 Posts
IdrA plays on a different level than other foreign "professionals" except the obvious. Sen, Thorzain, huk, naniwa, idra, maybe Ret and Select. The rest are a step below There are tiers of pro play right now. There is the top code S level, the code S level, the Code A level, the Euro foreign level, the american foreign level, etc. The "48~52%" shit comes from the ENTIRE pro scene. Against standard pro level protoss like Socke, whitera, etc he has well over a 55-70% win rate. His comments on ZvP balance are limited to the next tier of play, the actual Code S korean level protoss who understand how to micro and macro and do timing attacks like Mc, Huk, and even Naniwa (yes nani is Code s level, he is much better than Tester or Genius.) | ||
|
Clog
United States950 Posts
On July 19 2011 07:28 dani` wrote: Not really imo. If statistics over like 500+ games say PvZ ~ 50%, then he can not simply "assume" that's because it's always the worse Protoss player playing against a better Zerg. That's kinda ridiculous and sad at the same time. Taking a tournament result and use that one result to talk about balance ("NesTea won GSL, Zerg isn't underpowered") is indeed questionable, I agree with him on that, obviously. He is right when he talks about randomness here and there, but the whole point of statistics is to take a big enough sample size to get rid of that stuff. He is essentially saying he understands the game perfectly and if he says it's imbalanced it is true; even though statistics do not back it up. That's not how it works. It seemed to be that part of his point was zerg was getting constantly buffed and P or T would lose a bit before they started figuring out new strategies / comps (etc) to be able to deal with the buffs. Like he said, SC2 is young and there's a lot that isn't figured out yet. It seems almost comical to be using statistics when you have games included in there such as the Inca vs Nestea series, and all that terrans that still don't get ghosts (or get them late) against infestor -> broodlord builds. Of course, that applies the other way around as well, but you get my point. Even 500 games (which seems like a lot) isn't that much considering all that different maps, players, new builds... I could go on and on. And once you get to such large amounts of data at the pro level, you can begin to cross over into older patches, which you don't want when dealing with balance. Pulling out random-ass stats is just easier to do... doesn't require almost any mental capacity to do, which is why people do it so much. Not that I'm that qualified myself to analyze games at a high level but it's more meaningful to cite various games of (for example) zergs winning games against terrans using infestor BL against a variety of seemingly intelligent and well controlled responses from the terran rather than digging up some 57% ZvT stat in X, Y, Z tournaments in games longer than 20 minutes or something stupid like that. | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
| ||
|
Micket
United Kingdom2163 Posts
But the game is reasonably balanced to the extent that, in order to exploit a certain imbalance, a high level of skill is required. There are no simple 1 base, no multitask, no scouting builds that can give you a very high chance of winning. The only one that nearly fits this description whilst actually being good is the 1-1-1 all in vs Protoss as Terran. Because of this, we have to look at Korea where you see the highest level of play. But here there is another problem. The sample size is way too small. Let's look at GSL May. PvZ stats give 7-12 in favour of Zerg. What does this tell you? That Protoss, with their puny 37% win ratio is weak against zerg? NO, in fact, it doesn't tell you anything. All it tells you is that the matchup isn't completely broken and unplayable. Using statistics is fine when discussing game balance, its just that we don't have any meaningful stats to use. | ||
|
dragoonier
Germany154 Posts
Idra simply doesn't want to admit that he plays ZvP the wrong way. | ||
|
ChatimentZ
Belgium227 Posts
| ||
|
ravenKRaz
United States580 Posts
| ||
|
wats0n
United States509 Posts
On July 19 2011 07:28 dani` wrote: Not really imo. If statistics over like 500+ games say PvZ ~ 50%, then he can not simply "assume" that's because it's always the worse Protoss player playing against a better Zerg. That's kinda ridiculous and sad at the same time. That's not what he said about ladder. He said that the game is designed and balanced so that it will be 50% on ladder so using ladder stats as proof of balance is not warranted. It's a good point. Just because the game is 50% for all races on ladder doesn't mean that professional players in tournament settings will have the same balance because the level of play is totally different from ladder. | ||
|
Executor1
1353 Posts
On July 19 2011 07:49 SafeAsCheese wrote: I am going to be blunt as well. IdrA plays on a different level than other foreign "professionals" except the obvious. Sen, Thorzain, huk, naniwa, idra, maybe Ret and Select. The rest are a step below There are tiers of pro play right now. There is the top code S level, the code S level, the Code A level, the Euro foreign level, the american foreign level, etc. The "48~52%" shit comes from the ENTIRE pro scene. Against standard pro level protoss like Socke, whitera, etc he has well over a 55-70% win rate. His comments on ZvP balance are limited to the next tier of play, the actual Code S korean level protoss who understand how to micro and macro and do timing attacks like Mc, Huk, and even Naniwa (yes nani is Code s level, he is much better than Tester or Genius.) You cant just say that naniwa is code s level, how many code s players besides mc in a pvp have you seen him play against? Tester and genius could easily look worse because they are playing against far superior players, and naniwa could look better because he is playing against far inferior players. The only other koreans i remember him playing is moon (not even code a) squirtle in NASL (who beat him) and Nada in NASL (who beat him very handily) There is no way to say he is code s level until you see him play against code s leve caliber players (sure he beat MC once but mc has also beaten him and PVP is probably the most volatile matchup) Im a huge fan of naniwa but i certainly wouldnt call him code s level until i see him tear it up in code a , and actually beat some mid level koreans(code a) until he can prove his worth at the top echelon. | ||
|
Mictoman
Norway42 Posts
| ||
|
Bayyne
United States1967 Posts
On July 19 2011 07:28 dani` wrote: Not really imo. If statistics over like 500+ games say PvZ ~ 50%, then he can not simply "assume" that's because it's always the worse Protoss player playing against a better Zerg. That's kinda ridiculous and sad at the same time. Taking a tournament result and use that one result to talk about balance ("NesTea won GSL, Zerg isn't underpowered") is indeed questionable, I agree with him on that, obviously. He is right when he talks about randomness here and there, but the whole point of statistics is to take a big enough sample size to get rid of that stuff. He is essentially saying he understands the game perfectly and if he says it's imbalanced it is true; even though statistics do not back it up. That's not how it works. When you refer to that hypothetical PvZ being 50%, are you referring to ladder games? If so, of course it will be close to 50%; all ladder match-ups should be close to 50% according to Blizz's MMR system. If you are referring to 500+ PvZ tournament match-ups, then there's a bit more truth to it. But I still don't think it means much since this game is in fact still being learned, even on the pro-level. Right now, at this point in the game, you just can't look at pure numbers/statistics (even if there is a sample size of 10,000) when discussing "balance" or "design", there has to be a more closer look at the match-ups, skill level of players, etc. However, good interview. I never knew Carmac could be so serious in his interviews. =) | ||
| ||
