Some of you might know that I used to interview people a lot, but pretty much stopped it after starting to manage the Intel Extreme Masters.
I have decided to make a little comeback since I have missed interviewing interesting people. I took the opportunity at the HomeStory Cup 3 and interviewed IdrA:
I'm also trying to foster an interviewer - this Tarson interview might also be interesting for the Polish Terran's fans:
the lady who is interviewing tarson is ridiculously gorgeous :o also @carmac: you're a really good interviewer. although the IdrA interview is extremely critical you managed to deliver it in an honest and respectful fashion which i wouldn't consider an easy task. i enjoyed watching it, thank you!
The interview with idra is the best interview i've ever seen related to sc2. Really interesting, good and serious questinons and idra anwering really honest, not just these fast answers that are really common. Looking forward for more good interviews from you carmac!
Carmac is an awesome interviewer, very interesting and out of the ordinary questions. This is how it should look like - a conversation between two people, not just questions being read aloud from a sheet.
I thought this was going to be another one of those troll interviews and almost didn't watch it. However I was pleasantly surprised. It was a very good interview thanks for uploading.
2 Very good interviews. Seriously, very well done Carmac, you are the man! Tarson's interview was great as well. It was nice to see a bit more of his personality.
No surprise here, Carmac is (was?) a great journalist in his time, has a lot of experience under his belt; Therefore, his approach to interviewing is a tad different (i.e. more professional) than what the scene grew accustomed to ("What is, like, your favourite race, lol?"). The video was properly edited, too, not just thrown online the way it came out.
Great to see you back in action, I hope to see more of your work (serious or otherwise) in the near future.
Carmac I'm just going to say you are the best interviewer i've seen yet. Your comedy interviews are hilarious, and this is the first time ive seen a serious interview from you, and you've had some of the best questions ive heard from an interviewer yet. Very in depth and none of the fluffy stuff everyone already knows. Mad props.
IdrA still thinks protoss is overpowered? God, maybe he should acknowledge his ZvP is just bad and then he can work on not going mass roach every game. I think protoss know how to counter that by now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure he'd admit that ZvP is his worst matchup, even without considering any imbalances that might be present
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.)
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.
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.
The problem with using the "international" statistics is that clearly, hardly any of the games are high level enough and are not indicative of balance at all. In BW (which is perfectly balanced with the correct maps imo), Protoss was the best "n00b" race and at lower levels was way better than Zerg and especially Terran. Put it this way, saying Protoss is the easy race and best race at a lower level is common sense on the BW forums and no one even thinks twice about it, because its true. From this, there might be a possibility that any statistics from lower level play should be ignored as it doesn't show correct game balance at all. All it will show is if there is some completely broken strategy which results in the game being broken at all levels. For example, if marines cost 25 minerals, Terran would be overpowered, and would be clearly shown in these "lower level" statistics.
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.
Well then you have to compare code s against code s and you can see that zergs to pretty well against protoss. Losira never lost a series so far against Protoss including Mc. Coca dominated his ZvP matches in the current Gsl. And we don't have to talk about Nestea I think. Idra simply doesn't want to admit that he plays ZvP the wrong way.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. =)
Really good interview with IdrA. Love the fact that you ask "disturbing" questions. We can see him being a bit disturbed in some of his answers. He makes some valid points though, but IdrA is IdrA. I don't think we can expect 100% objectivity from him or any other progamer. He speaks his very own believes though, and I appreciate that.
I love how you avoided the obvious and generic questions. Really got down and dirty with IdrA and asked him a ton of tough questions.
And IdrA, like a boss, stood his ground and defended all his points. Say what you will about IdrA, but he is extremely intelligent and it shows in his interviews.
This is why we've all missed your interviews Carmac, you really hit some unique and brilliant questions, with answers we don't often get to hear. You're not afraid to get all the questions out there and it is a great day today, now that you've said you'd like to try to do more interviews.
Very nice interview Carmac. It's amazing that no matter what character you want to be, you still provide amazing interviews, whether funny or insightful. Thank you very much.
Just watched the interview and i really enjoyed it; some really great questions/answers. It was funny when you referred to 'online' Greg releasing the Gracken :p
For all that you may be busy with at IEM i appreciate this content
Carmac is very good at interviewing, though I couldn't enjoy it too much unfortunately due to Idras constant balance QQ. Someone please introduce him to the infestor.
I kinda feel like the questions and answer for the Idra interview is very similar to the MLG one not long ago, a lot of the questions have been covered by previous interviews, I was kinda expecting something different. =(
Tarson interview was cool tho, usually don't get to hear from these players much.
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.
We don't have a big enough sample size though. The metagame has been changing too much to get 500 high level ZvPs in one "metagame" phase.
I'm still not understanding how statistics can be dismissed so easily. Anyone care to explain? If the results of play on a match-up are close to 50%, you can't simply dismiss it based on "skill level" of the players. That train of thought leads you to assume players of a specific race are simply "bad" at the game. Factors like that disappear when you have a large enough sample size. It seems most people want to dismiss humanity's entire history of mathematics.
If results of match-ups are close to 50%, I don't see any problem. If results are skewed and a race is winning 80% of a match-up, there is a problem in balance.
Taking the top 50 players of a game using them as examples of balance leads to games becoming UNBALANCED. Looking at large pools of actual results is based on fact. Opinions of skill level is not scientific and will lead to unbalance.
Many of you seem to be thinking of scenarios like the following, but using the information incorrectly:
To use a hypothetical:
Top 30 players 10 of each race TvT 60% TvP 70% TvZ 80% PvP 50% PvZ 50% ZvZ 50%
That doesn't mean necessarily mean T is better than the other races. Using such a small sample size does not give accurate results.
The 10 players here COULD be better, or the race of the players COULD be better. This small statistic pool does not help in understanding balance.
Now, take the following:
Top 300,000 players 100,000 of each race TvT 60% TvP 70% TvZ 80% PvP 50% PvZ 50% ZvZ 50%
THAT is much more likely to be imbalance.
The chances of the 10 T players in the first scenario being, on average, simply BETTER than the Z and P players is MUCH higher than the chances of the 100,000 T players simply being better than the other races.
This is statistics 101. Small sample sizes lead to inaccurate results. Dismissing ladder results is to throw away the best tool in understanding game balance.
Well, Ladder is designed to give 50% win rate. The MMR system's purpose of existence is to give you an even match and try to make you have a 50% winrate. Also, why balance the game to lower level players? The only imbalance in lower level players is the skill difference.
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.
We don't have a big enough sample size though. The metagame has been changing too much to get 500 high level ZvPs in one "metagame" phase.
it's been patched too often for that kind of sample size, as well
Furthermore, balance varies from skill level. It is easy to imagine a race that is easy to play, but hard to master.
I guess one big argument against taking statistics too seriously at this point is that there aren't a good pool of top players to look at. There are only a couple of defining players for each race. A handful of pros that are considered consistently good. Furthermore, the metagame hasn't stabilized yet, and probably won't do so before any further patch changes or expansion occurs.
This all makes it very difficult to draw much balance conclusion from statistics.
On July 19 2011 05:45 agtemd wrote: No Uszat? Son I am dissapoint. Thanks for the interviews anyways
I'm pretty sure I have seen Carmac interview Idra before so it wouldn't really work.
Anyway great interview, the question were very good and Idra always good elaborate answers (whether one agrees with them or not).
Oh no, I've trolled him 11 months ago. I just haven't released it yet.
You must spread the trolling wisdom of Uszat. Upload it! Seriously though, great interview with IdrA. A very serious, personal interview has been longing.
This has to be one of the best player interviews sine SC2 came out. You can tell Carmac knows what kind of questions are likely to produce fruitful responses, and he follows them up really well. He's thoughtful and fair, but doesn't take it easy on IdrA. Some credit certainly has to go to IdrA for giving complete/thorough answers, but this sort of interview doesn't happen without a really good interviewer and an intellectually open environment.
Man that IdrA interview was AWESOME! It was great to see not only different questions asked, but really gritty questions. I also really enjoyed how IdrA doesn't shy away from the hard questions, people may think he's some BM child because of his rage but at least in interviews he comes across as incredibly intelligent and self-aware.
Idra is similar to Tyler in that they are both super articulate. Some of those questions danced around topics he's spoke a lot about and for a self proclaimed 'quiet guy' he didn't seem to have any problems expressing himself. Carmac is a very good interviewer, he asked a nice mix of questions but didn't shy away from ones Greg may have found a bit uncomfortable.
Wonder how that second interview really ended lol! Tarson must have carving up in the club the night before!
On July 19 2011 13:28 Whole wrote: Well, Ladder is designed to give 50% win rate. The MMR system's purpose of existence is to give you an even match and try to make you have a 50% winrate. Also, why balance the game to lower level players? The only imbalance in lower level players is the skill difference.
Yep, there are people who win with every kind of strategy in ladder, and in some cases strategy might not even matter, they might be macroing better for example. It is just not a good indicator to look at for balance. They could look for the top pro competition for that.
Goody is actually the perfect example why you can't just look at the macro mechanics to rate a player and the race. Everybody agrees that his macro isn't very good compared to other top level players but his best matchup is TvT and he is almost always the favorite in TvT outside of Korea.
I liked the interview even though I don't agree with many of Idra's points.
On July 19 2011 06:07 Murdock wrote: Though I'm not the biggest fan of idra, i always start to like him more after every interview with him. Especially good interview. GJ Carmac!
Aye, it's really strange. He can be such a **** and then next interview he's just awesome. Hard to cheer for him, but hard to hate him too...
Edit: Btw awesome interview, insanely good really. Perfect questions
On July 19 2011 23:50 vdale wrote: Goody is actually the perfect example why you can't just look at the macro mechanics to rate a player and the race. Everybody agrees that his macro isn't very good compared to other top level players but his best matchup is TvT and he is almost always the favorite in TvT outside of Korea.
I liked the interview even though I don't agree with many of Idra's points.
He didn't say Goody was a bad player. He just said you can objectively say whether certain aspects of someone's game are bad, which is true.
Idras logic on the ladder stats being 50% because of the matchmaking system by is just flat out wrong. Its been explained a thousand times on TL yet I know he will not read this so I'm not gonna bother.
Speaking of hypocrites, Idra is a fine one claiming that statistics have no place in a rational discussion while he makes an irrational assumption about the ladder stats.
The guy comes off as arrogant and makes a fool of himself to anyone smart enough to realize it.
You are a really good interviewer. You are great at asking difficult questions in a non-confronting way. The questions were way better than what you see in most interviews. Loved the question about "if idra had a clone who played protoss"!
Idras logic on the ladder stats being 50% because of the matchmaking system by is just flat out wrong.
this statement is so wrong... ladder stats being 50% just indicates one thing: the matchmaking works. The ladders only goal is to keep players artificially at 50%
If i lose very often, my MMR will drop and i will get weaker opponents till i reach 50% again. If i win too much, i will get stronger opponents till i reach 50% again.
So ladder staticstics doesnt say anything.
If i win 90% of my zvz, 52 % of my ZvT and just 8% of my ZvP im still at 50% win rate.
Even if my pvz is 50% it tells you nothing about how balanced it is, because you cant see the MMR. There is a huge possibility that the toss i lost to were on the same MMR as me and the ones i won where on lower mmr
On July 20 2011 00:17 Disquiet wrote: Idras logic on the ladder stats being 50% because of the matchmaking system by is just flat out wrong. Its been explained a thousand times on TL yet I know he will not read this so I'm not gonna bother.
Speaking of hypocrites, Idra is a fine one claiming that statistics have no place in a rational discussion while he makes an irrational assumption about the ladder stats.
The guy comes off as arrogant and makes a fool of himself to anyone smart enough to realize it.
On July 20 2011 00:17 Disquiet wrote: Idras logic on the ladder stats being 50% because of the matchmaking system by is just flat out wrong. Its been explained a thousand times on TL yet I know he will not read this so I'm not gonna bother.
Speaking of hypocrites, Idra is a fine one claiming that statistics have no place in a rational discussion while he makes an irrational assumption about the ladder stats.
The guy comes off as arrogant and makes a fool of himself to anyone smart enough to realize it.
On July 20 2011 00:17 Disquiet wrote: Idras logic on the ladder stats being 50% because of the matchmaking system by is just flat out wrong. Its been explained a thousand times on TL yet I know he will not read this so I'm not gonna bother.
Speaking of hypocrites, Idra is a fine one claiming that statistics have no place in a rational discussion while he makes an irrational assumption about the ladder stats.
The guy comes off as arrogant and makes a fool of himself to anyone smart enough to realize it.
Lol. Obvious troll is obvious.
Care to explain how IdrA's logic of the matchmaking system is wrong. You are right about it being explained a thousand times on TL, but every time it says "The matchmaking systems only goal is to have each player reach a 50% win rate" so idk wtf you're talkin about bro. IdrA is pretty spot on.
Typical idra, every tournament he just says "The zergs had hard groups and the protoss had easy". It's a perfect way to avoid the fact that zerg is fine, because saying a group is 'hard' is an extremely GENERAL comment.
Great Idra interview, very informative, very clean.
Tarson's interview was also great, and I liked that bit where apparently he said he was the best in Europe then laughed and asked to redo that question.
Nice Tarson interview, I noticed she was always looking him in the eye but he was looking at her lips, maybe I'm just watching too many old Poirot shows but seems like he was into her. I can't say I liked the Idra interview though but not because of Carmac but because idra always makes it sound like Zerg sucks, his opponents only lose because they mess up or because they suck and he won't switch races because he's gone so far with it. Never have seen someone do that little circle over and over and yet have so many fans, give them drama and they love you I suppose. I was hoping for some trolling but Carmac was all straight up, still great job by him as always.
this statement is so wrong... ladder stats being 50% just indicates one thing: the matchmaking works. The ladders only goal is to keep players artificially at 50%
If i lose very often, my MMR will drop and i will get weaker opponents till i reach 50% again. If i win too much, i will get stronger opponents till i reach 50% again.
So ladder staticstics doesnt say anything.
If i win 90% of my zvz, 52 % of my ZvT and just 8% of my ZvP im still at 50% win rate.
Even if my pvz is 50% it tells you nothing about how balanced it is, because you cant see the MMR. There is a huge possibility that the toss i lost to were on the same MMR as me and the ones i won where on lower mmr
Care to explain?
Lol. Obvious troll is obvious.
Care to explain how IdrA's logic of the matchmaking system is wrong. You are right about it being explained a thousand times on TL, but every time it says "The matchmaking systems only goal is to have each player reach a 50% win rate" so idk wtf you're talkin about bro. IdrA is pretty spot on.
If one matchup was significantly easier e.g TvP, you would see terran players with a higher average win ratio in TvP, and a Lower ratio in TvZ, while still maintaining the 50% average overall winrate.
The total win ratio for a player will always trend to 50% yes, but the match up specific averages will not, and can indicate imbalance.
The total win ratio for a player will always trend to 50% yes, but the match up specific averages will not, and can indicate imbalance.
you dont see the matchup specific averages. You just see the overall average.
and even then:
imagine TvZ would be unbalanced in a straight up game. Z would always dominate. But most terrans will go for an marine + scv cheese anyways, bringing the terran MU specific winrate to 53% Balanced?
Typical idra, every tournament he just says "The zergs had hard groups and the protoss had easy".
He said the exact opposite. According to him, the zergs who qualified had easy groups. He had grubby,cloud and delphi, Xlord had mc (who he lost to), demuslim (who was just coming back to competition) and tyler. Stephano had huk,insolence and naruto
lol Idra still not giving nestea any credit !?!?
Is he blind?
He has said multiple time that nestea is very good. But in that gsl he played in order: jinro and clide in group stage then fruitdealer,anypro, sc (the only really good player he faced, and he barely won) and inca. You can't take that result as a proof that zerg are doing Ok, especially against protoss.
Now i'm not saying that IdrA is right but the examples he takes are very well chosen to serve his point.
What a nice interview done by Carmac. Very intelligent questions and answers done by both of them, and I really like the questions asked by Carmac, which are not the typical questions being asked over and over again.
As said previously in this thread, it is so good to see an interview which consists of Carmac and Idra having an actual conversation instead of the ask and answer type of style.
Excellent interview with Idra. I really enjoy listening to the guy talk. Even though I'm agnostic on the point of game balance (I simply don't have the required knowledge or information to discuss the balance of the game in its current state), and get annoyed when people discuss it from the position of ignorance that the vast majority of people have, I feel like his arguments are very well thought-out and interesting to listen to.
The conversational style of the conversation, as Helvig says above, was also a definite plus. It was very cool that they spent a good deal of time discussing a few questions instead of just doing a rapid-fire question/response.
Q: After DreamHack and HSC how do you rate yourself in Europe? Tarsen: Najlepsi (which in my native language means "the most handsome one" or "prettiest" (or whatever))
For me the joke was pretty good due to the fact he was interviewed by a girl. But then I googled it and it does mean "best" in Polish (such a disappointment) .
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.)
By that logic couldn't you argue that Idra has trouble against players in the higher tiers of play because they are better than him? At least in PvZ.
Both good interviews. Tarson is a funny guy, clearly the difference between DH and HSC is that he wasn't hung over at DH. Also does Polish always sound so seductive, or is it just Tarson?