[Trans] Interview, Chris Sigaty/David Kim - Page 9

On December 27 2011 16:19 doko100 wrote:



doesnt change the fact that its inaccurate.

On December 27 2011 16:51 HolyArrow wrote:


Heh. Obviously, you'll call any sort of mathematical/statistical measure inaccurate if it goes against your own biases. It's natural, but try to remember that in the end, these type of player scoring systems are completely objective. Maybe a few inaccuracies here and there, but no system is perfect, and just because you nitpick at small imperfections such as Deezer being placed above WhiteRa/BoxeR doesn't mean that the system is completely and utterly devoid of any meaning or accuracy.

On December 27 2011 16:51 HolyArrow wrote:



How do we determine if a game is balanced? Well, people can theorycraft, and pros can give their opinions, but all those things are obviously marred by bias. So, we then also have an objective, unbiased scoring system that seems to indicate a trend of Protoss being weak at the highest level, but you proceed to just rationalize things to support your own biases by discrediting objective (albeit, perhaps slightly flawed) evidence. This tells me that absolutely no argument can be made to change your views, due to a very large degree of stubbornness on your part.

On December 27 2011 17:09 doko100 wrote:



Do you really think that Deezer thing is the only inaccuracy on TLPD? That was just one example, there are hundreds of players that nobody even knows and that are not top level that have an insanely high ELO.

Seiplo, Verdi, Vortix, roof, Edge, Sungpa, iceice, DemonShip, Unix, daisuki, Pegasus, Ninkum, Bubbles, Suppy, Outside, Mafia, Mihai, Meyera, Targa... just to name a few and each and everyone of them has a ELO higher than 2100.

And not a single on of these players is anywhere close to the top level, even at foreign standards. Now please keep defending TLPD, but I'm sure that even the programmers of TLPD are aware that it is really inaccurate.

And I'm not disrespecting anyone here, just stating some facts. TLPD is extremely random, it has no statistical meaning.

So please don't call me nitpicky when there is actually hundreds of examples that prove how inaccurate TLPD is.

On December 27 2011 17:20 HolyArrow wrote:


Check out my edit. I will say again: It's not good for player-to-player comparisons, but it's good for indicating trends. Furthermore, plenty of trends in the GSL support the general trend TLPD is displaying: That Protoss is weaker at the top level. Seriously, just look at how many Protosses have been in the finals/semifinals of Code S or Code A compared to Terrans. Surely, you can't deny that the first Protoss player on TLPD in Korea is all the way down at the 15th spot is a mere coincidence, a product of the "extreme randomness" that you speak of.

On December 27 2011 17:21 doko100 wrote:


check out my edit then. oh wait you will just ignore that because it shows terran as the weakest race in november. herp derp TLPD indicates how balanced the game is, eh? Buff terran then.... I guess?

On December 27 2011 17:25 HolyArrow wrote:


The problem here is that we're simultaneously editing stuff and thus are missing each other's edits, so don't try to use that as an excuse to accuse me of ignoring evidence.

On December 27 2011 16:15 K3Nyy wrote:


I'd think again before you disrespect something that people put tons of effort into.

ELO just shows how well someone is doing right now. Deezer probably won a tournament or placed high or something. Also, he might be a huge stream cheating/sniping asshole, but he's actually not that bad a player. (Not to say he's Whitera's or Boxer's level.

On December 27 2011 17:30 doko100 wrote:


Nice cop-out. So you are just ignoring the fact that TLPD shows terran as the statistically weakest race in November (after the last 2 patches in which Terran got nerfed and Protoss got buffed). According to you that proves that Terran is the weakest race, because TLPD = statistical evidence for imbalance..

On December 27 2011 17:39 HolyArrow wrote:


I already kind of preemptively countered this crappy point, but I guess I'll also say that if you're serious about it, then you also need to look at the numbers carefully. See how Terran is a mere 1% below Protoss and Zerg in overall winrates? Now, observe how Protoss is 9% below Terran overall in October, 5% below Terran in September, and 6% below Terran in July. You're conveniently oversimplifying things. Numbers matter, and they clearly show how weak your point actually is.

On December 27 2011 17:48 Boblhead wrote:
All i read was cross region battles *Crosses fingers for multi region play*

On December 27 2011 17:30 doko100 wrote:


Nice cop-out. So you are just ignoring the fact that TLPD shows terran as the statistically weakest race in November (after the last 2 patches in which Terran got nerfed and Protoss got buffed). According to you that proves that Terran is the weakest race, because TLPD = statistical evidence for imbalance..

edit: Then how does the argument that TvP is terran favored make any sense at all, even statistically it's protoss favored (after the last 2 patches) and how does your argument of protoss being the weakest race make any sense when TLPD (what you base your argument on) shows Terran as the weakest race? Contradiction much?

And I love how you called me stubborn when your post is actually one big contradiction that doesn't even make sense, yes I'm stubborn because other people don't know what they are talking about.... ouch.

On December 27 2011 17:53 HolyArrow wrote:


In response to your edit: There are quite a few things wrong with your logic, and it's pretty clear to me that all you are doing is exaggerating certain things about my points to misrepresent them, and/or are willfully misinterpreting them because it's convenient for you to make my points look silly, though they are certainly not. First of all, you assume that just because the TLPD for November alone finally has Terran a mere 1% below Protoss and Zerg in overall winrate that Terran is now the weakest race. However, this would be a very limited scope of how things are, and, if you look at the big picture, the Protoss line is still well below both the Terran and Zerg lines, while the Terran line has finally stopped being the top line for the first time in the entire year. Only time will tell as to how the big picture will change, but, right now, Terran is a mere 1% below Zerg and Protoss, which I'm sure anyone would agree is pretty negligible.

Secondly, Terran being 1% below Zerg/Protoss in overall winrate is negligible; the first Protoss in the Korean ELO being at rank 15 is not. If you have a relatively small pool of players (compared to an international view of tons of different games) and none of the top 14 are Protoss, then I think it clearly shows that the best Protoss players are clearly having trouble competing with the very best of the other races. This also shows in the general popular perception of respective heroes of each race. Terran has very clear heros, such as MVP and MMA. Zerg as well, with Nestea, DRG, and Leenock. But, in the Korean scene, what does Protoss have? Oz? He's looked fairly strong, but far from MVP/MMA/Nestea/DRG status. HerO? He's not even out of Code A, and overall has a pretty bad record in Korea. MC is the best candidate in my opinion, but even he hasn't done all that much lately, and has certainly fallen from being up there with MVP and Nestea in terms of results.

On December 27 2011 17:43 doko100 wrote:


My point is that TLPD is inaccurate and therefore doesn't prove anything at all. Your argument is that, according to TLPD, Protoss is the weakest race. However, when we look at TLPD it shows Terran as the weakest race. I'm not saying that Terran is the weakest race, all I'm saying is that your point is wrong, because A: TLPD is inaccurate and B: TLPD doesn't show Protoss as the weakest race, so it is actually ridiculous or I would even say impossible to logically conclude that Protoss is the weakest race. Even based on TLPD they are not the weakest race.

So even if TLPD was accurate, your conclusion that Protoss is the weakest race would still be wrong, so it doesn't even matter, you are wrong either way.

On December 27 2011 17:59 HolyArrow wrote:


Hardly. You neglect the fact that ELO is more of a long-term thing, whereas overall winrates for a single month is a very limited picture. A more reasonable view for you to take would be to actually look at the Terran and Zerg lines in the main graph. See how they're still significantly above the Protoss line? That's because those lines represent the long term; the big picture.

On December 27 2011 17:57 doko100 wrote:



Like I said, my point is not that Terran is the weakest race. And your post is extremely biased. Seriously just because there is only 1 Protoss in the Top 15 means that Protoss is evidently the weakest race? Or maybe Zerg and Terran players are just better, this is such an incredibly small player pool (15 people) there is no statistical evidence at all because individual skill could very well be the main factor when limiting the scope to just 15 people.

You are incredibly bias and actually wasting my time now, statistically Protoss isn't the weakest race, which is what I was getting at, intelligent people will get the point, others won't.

And you are also ignoring the last 2 patches, who cares about the entire year when ,in the last 2 patches, Terran got nerfed and Protoss got buffed, the game changed so drastically it is absolutely irrelevant what happened before that.

On December 27 2011 18:12 HolyArrow wrote:


I'm okay with you thinking that I'm wasting your time, because I'm getting kind of tired of this as well. However, I will make one last point: The fact that you don't think the rest of the year matters makes your implication that I'm unintelligent terribly ironic. There's more to balance than simply how a race is currently doing. Races are designed differently - some better, some worse than others, and I'm pretty sure most agree that Terran is the best designed race, in its versatility and modularity. There's a reason Blizzard took so long to nerf the 1-1-1 all-in, and that's because Terran is so well designed that it was difficult for them to figure out what to nerf. The strength of the 1-1-1 all-in wasn't due to a single unit - it was due to how incredibly well all the units worked together - hence, good design, and that's just one example. Throughout the year, Terran has been subjected to plenty of nerfs, yet only now Terran has finally been brought down, and that's ignoring the fact that statistics will be skewed immediately after a nerf because players haven't had much time to figure other things out yet. Why did it take this long for Terran to be brought down? Simple: It's so well designed. And while good design is certainly laudable on behalf of the developers, it's not good for balance when one race is so well designed compared to the other two.

You can try to make the argument that the past is irrelevant, but it isn't. At the core of each race is a design, and that design dictates how the metagame will shift. A badly designed race will flounder when its core strategies are figured out/nerfed and will have a difficult time bouncing back, while a well designed race will always find more options. Design is absolutely paramount in considering the big picture of balance, and hopefully HotS will fix some big design problems present in the game overall.

On December 27 2011 18:18 doko100 wrote:


I'm totally fine with that statement. But that just isn't what you originally said, if you had said this in your first post there would have been no need for an argument. You basically just said something completely different to what you originally said. Let me remind you "protoss is statistically the weakest race" - which is wrong.

To me it seems like you just changed your argument, after realizing that your actual statement was simply wrong.

On December 27 2011 18:24 HolyArrow wrote:


When was "Protoss is statistically the weakest race" my argument? I was merely taking issue with how people will discredit objective evidence when it's inconvenient in my original post. But, I do admit that one thing led to another, and I began arguing that Protoss is statistically the weakest race. However, my final point indeed supports that argument, because that point was made to argue that the past does matter. If the past does matter, then the it's clear that the Red, Blue, and Green lines do matter in the overall winrate graph, and if those do matter, the point still stands that the Protoss line is well below the Zerg and Terran lines.