|
|
|
That is supremely cool :D
|
This is really cool. The font size for the legend could be a little bit bigger because it is hard to read atm and it woulndt screw too much with the spacing of the other things.
I especially like the upgrades tab. Thats really cool and is currently missing from the standard stats screen.
|
Only confusing part was the legend for gas/minerals income. Good graphic otherwise.
|
This is pretty neat. Great idea and execution.
Did you mean to put something like Aircraft/Aerial Plating + Weapons instead of repeating Vehicle in the legend?
Hmm, I do think you shouldn't just tack gas on to the end of minerals, it makes it harder to compare relative gas income.
And keep the blue/Boxer's Units killed/resources destroyed on the right, like the rest of the chart.
|
That is pretty sick. I'd love to see more!
|
Of course Boxer PWNs!
Thanks for the graphics though
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kinda tricky at first, but once you figure it out, its really nice way to compare stats. Hope seeing this one in the future
|
That is really damn cool. A lot of info at a glance, and a whole lot more when you look closer.
|
I assume you're a graphic designer =)?
|
|
|
It's been said before, the upgrade names are kinda wrong. But otherwise this is how post-game blizzard graphs should look like! Also, I don't think it's that hard to extrapolte from the game's data (for blizzard, this might be a good idea to present in the b.net forums.)
Here's some ideas on what to add:
gaining and losing tech trees:
The first time each of them builds a Barracks, the first time each of them builds a factory and the same for the starport.
also, when they lose their only barracks or only factory and lose that tech. This could give nice additional info.
I'd stick those "images" (like you did with the expos) on to a graph that shows relative supply - like you did with the kill count.
Good job!
|
this is really impressive.
|
with dreamhack you could also put their pulse 
and perhaps a rage meter, and when it's full, idra leaves, no gg
|
Pretty sick way of showing match stats if you ask me <3
|
this chart is awesome 
u need a script to do it out of a replay file
|
Really cool, though I would also like to see how much resources each player has unspent at any given point. I didn't watch that game, but I'm getting the impression Boxer was able to resupply his army quickly after the battle at 30 whereas TLO dwindled, and stockpiled minerals is one possible answer to the question why.
|
It says vehicle 4 times at the upgrades, where 2 times ship and 2 times vehicle should be. Otherwise, awesome.
|
This chart are really interesting.
Like said before, the upgrade name are kinda wrong but understandable.
For my point of view, only one thing is missing : the name of the map (and may be the spawning position) because it's a huge hint on which strat players used. I think it would be a great idea to put a picture of the map with the dot for the spawning position (and if possible, the position and order of the expand taken)
Keep up the good work. I would like to see more of it (with Zerg and Protoss).
|
The graphics look awesome and it gives a lot of info, well done :D
Seems upgrades contributed to Boxers win. Of course it's impossible to be sure without actually watching the game.
|
would love to see more of those !
a suggestion for the income mins/gas should be centered so that minerals bar extends to the left and gas income to the right from the center point. That way you can compare mins/gas and overall on a glance.
|
I would also try to include some of the other important upgrades (stimpack /combat shields comes to mind for terran). don't know if it's possible to do that without overwhelming the graphic though.
|
I love well designed infographics, but you really can't tell much about the game here, except for the fact that TLO threw away an army mid-game and it went to late game BC/viking/raven. For actual game analysis, I'd still prefer SC2 gears.
If you could make this automatically generated, it would be pretty awesome, otherwise, it's just a cool looking proof of concept.
|
I think the upgrades could be put on the timeline on the left, since they take up so much space. Maybe it could be replaced by something else, like current unit comp at a certian point or somthing?
|
The medla for BoxeR should be golden, but awesome chart.
|
I'd prefer if the titles "Army size" and the "Units killed resources destroyed" wasn't devided in colors since it just confusing. The different colors for each column is enough.
Other than that, great job.
|
Very nice, I like the obviously visible correlation between upgrades and army lost!
|
Italy420 Posts
very well executed, like it!
i may point out though that imo army size work better on a curve-graph style rather than a cake-graph ( apologized for possible wrong terms for it)
other than that, coolio
cazzo ciao!
|
it'd be cool if u could automate the creation of this type of graph
|
Ah awesome! Detailed and really interesting! Props to you OP!
On December 01 2011 18:59 Lip the Pencilboy wrote:
very well executed, like it!
i may point out though that imo army size work better on a curve-graph style rather than a cake-graph ( apologized for possible wrong terms for it)
other than that, coolio
cazzo ciao!
You mean a line graph rather than a pie chart?
|
cool beans! very nice digram!
i think you dont really have to change anything, but if, IF, here is what i would like to see:
wait, no there it is!
at first i thought there were a few things missing but when you look close enough, there is actually all the information you want to know. really nice work!
ah, one thing: the scv supply in numbers. and the dropped mule count, of course.
|
United States110 Posts
I would love it if someone with an extensive knowledge of css / html / java could help me make this into something that could be purely (or close to purely) code. Where we could punch in some numbers and the graphs would generate themselves. I am pretty positive it is possible to do so I just need some help ^^;
Thanks everyone for the constructive criticism though I will work on many of the issues noted!
|
Now make it fit on a 1080p screen in full screen without zooming or scrolling, auto-generate it from replays, offer it as a web service and you can revolutionize web game reports. 
|
United States110 Posts
I will never be able to generate it from replays because (stupidly) most of this information is not data stored in the replay file (i don't understand why, i'm considering e-mailing blizzard) BUT i do wish to find some way to make this easier to generate once the data is collected. Still working on that part...
|
looks like TLO was massively behind from that one big battle and couldn't out-produce boxer from that point on, even if he could come out even in the engagements.
(i missed the match :-[ )
|
Nice! Thanks a lot!
Only thing for me: I would love to have it in big size someway?
|
Very nice, but shouldn't units killed be inverted so as the units killed by Boxer (blue) would be on the right and units killed by TLO (red) be on the left, since Army size and Upgrades are structured that way?
|
wow great! :o
You can sell this design to blizzard, or at least tourneys, for $$$ no doubt. Imagine getting one of these after each game you play, or watch!
A few suggestions:
- I really like the army min/gas value as pie chart, it makes it easy to compare if the army composition is getting more or less gas heavy, which is not easy to see in a line graph.
- Im thinking about something with apm, but maybe its not so straightforward to extract. (or if you use sc2gears, it should be easier maybe)
- The upgrades are very important an should be there, but i think they can take a bit less space to leave more space for other things.
- The units killed can be made a LOT more informative (imo) if you show the difference instead, that is, how much did TLO kill in this timeslot, rather than how much has TLO killed total.
|
This is awesome! Although the resource collection rate thing is a bit confusing. But holy crap this is cool...
|
This awesome graphic is such a cool way to describe THE BEST GAME OF STARCRAFT 2 EVER PLAYED. Seriously though if you haven't seen this game you have to watch it, all TvTs should be this awesome.
|
This is a really neat graphic. I'm very impressed by the aesthetics of this, and how it covers what most of us consider to be the most relevant bits of game info.
My real question is regarding purpose.
This is a sleek, elegant account of the game. My question is, aside from going "ooo...shiny!", why would I want to look at something like this? Is it meant to be purely descriptive, or can I use this to answer specific questions about the game?
I guess the first way to think about the question is, who would be most interested in this.
Suppose I hadn't seen this game, but was told it was awesome, what would make this a good "first thing to look at" as far as wanting to grasp what happened in the game? One question you could ask yourself here is, if I hadn't seen this game, and was interested in this game, why would I look at this instead of reading someone elses account of the game? What information could I get about the game more quickly, conveniently, or more clearly, or in a more interesting fashion than from alternatives (written accounts, the replay itseld, etc.)
Now suppose I am someone who had just watched this game. What value do I get out of this chart. What can I learn about the game from this that I might not have picked up from watching the replay or cast myself? Does it offer me intellectual value (ie an analytical tool) or does it offer entertainment/aesthetic value? If it offers me intellectual value, what burning questions might I have at the end of the game that this helps me answer?
From a more general perspective, what is the message of the chart? Graphjam will have all kinds of stupidly simple charts, but they have a clear (if stupid) message (men are horn-dogs/women don't listen/drivers are careless/etc.). Another question you could ask yourself is, what is the message of this chart, and how does it communicate that message better than some other form of communication?
I don't know where the data for this is from, and how hard it is to aggregate this, but I feel like, from an analytical perspective, there is A LOT more that could be divined from examining this underlying data over the series. For example, with your data over a series you could ask "on average, how long did Boxer have an upgrade advantage?" Or you could ask, "On average, how much sooner than Boxer did TLO expand?" By aggregating this data over the course of a series, you could start to quantitatively tease apart styles. If a player has an "upgrade-centric" style, it could be quantitatively revealed (eg. Player X tends to spend about 20 minutes of the game with an upgrade advantage, or spent 60 minutes of the series with an upgrade advantage). Obviously, if you put this together by watching the replay and just manually ticking off time markers, this becomes unwieldy and impossible.
I'm not expecting to address all of these questions. This is meant to be a variety of options as to how one could think about this graphic. Good luck, and happy designing!
|
Definitely should add the map name in the picture, it would have allowed me to visualize the game in my mind a lot more clearly
|
am i the only one who thinks this is totally confusing and unnecessary?
the post game screen of blizzard is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better
|
Notes, upgrade of air/ground vehicle was hard to notice the difference of.
Image makes it look like a stomp from Boxer with TLO winning one battle and kind of making it even a while. Which kind of fits the game. For those that havn't watched the game, you can skip the first 20 minutes, nothing interesting happens.
|
Nice infographics. Here's my feedback:
1) Too much space is devoted to the upgrades path. The upgrade column is almost as large as the army and unit size combined yet those are far more important metrics of the game state. In terms of density of information, those 2 columns are very light. If you really wanted, you could represent all that information on just a single timeline like the expansions line on the left. I'd lower their real estate and expand the other columns.
2) The horizontal bars used for units killed seems to be the clearest for representing the relative difference which is what we're most interested in. The different sized pie charts used for army size isn't quite as effective. Also, they're stylistically incongruent. I'd go for more bar charts there as well.
|
Really awesome chat! So much info and easy to understand, I would love to see more of these!!
|
It's pretty cool. I would like to see one for game 2 of Leenock versus MVP in the GSL November semi finals.
+ Show Spoiler +Since for half the game MVP had basically lost but was keeping himself alive through sheer force of will, I'd like to see what that looks like, how he is constantly behind but the game won't end, and whether the gap gets bigger or smaller as time goes on.
|
I love how the graphic starts with "GLHF" and ends with "GG." The graphs tell the story how you went from one to the other.
|
You're so gosu Altered <3
|
i like the idea but i cant actually read anything out of all these stats
|
|
|
Really nice chart. Everything lines up pretty well but the units killed display has the colors in a different order from everything else. In pretty much every other part of the graphic, TLO (red) is first and then Boxer (blue) is second. Was a little confusing at first adapting to that as I went through the graphics.
|
United States110 Posts
@arcane To me, at least, i want this to be more of a post game reference. You saw what happened in the game, but I want to show what actually attributed to the eventual loss. The blizzard post game analysis only has a few "over time" charts. Day[9] once talked about "what's going on now" in one of his dailies, where he would pause the replay and look at everything that was going on at that moment. Even though what we may have seen in game was a banshee taking out 10 drones, (i don't actually remember what it really was) but by looking at the stats we could see that zErgPlayeR1 was still way ahead in economy and his army count was significantly larger than cloAkedBansheeFTW2. When watching this game live (as i did) it actually seemed very close and was a very exciting match, but after gathering the data i did, it's obvious that boxer was clearly ahead for most of the game in almost every measurable aspect.
One thing to note is that boxer had 14 orbital commands at one point, and his income was often fluctuating. so the income bars almost are irrelevant because there were many times inbetween the 3 minute markers where boxer's income was much higher than tlo's. I wish i had a better way to show this.. total orbital energy or total mules used is something I may include in the next version.
In a perfect world, this would be something where you could scroll your mouse over over line graph and get the actually number, but sadly my web design knowledge isn't that extensive 
In case anyone wanted to see, here is a link to the spreadsheet of all the data. There is some information that I didn't end up using but a lot of it is still there (except for units killed i believe..i dont remember why i didn't type it in) I know it looks like a lot of data in the chart. But it looks like WAY MORE DATA when you are just looking at the numbers.
@ those of you who say "it's pretty but i can't read it": Yes, i understand that there is a balance of aesthetic and usefulness in good design. I know i'm not the most skilled artist out there, but I'm trying. I understand there are issues in it's current form, I posted this here to help work out those issues. I understand that this could be more useful than pretty, but what people don't realize is that there is a downside to that also: People don't want to look at it. I prefer starting with the "it's too shiny" problem and moving into more useful from there. At least people are stopping and looking at it. Then when they realize they aren't interested in the data they walk away. If you don't want to read this then don't! I don't mind. Those of us that are interested can geek out over data in our own time.
I understand also that the large size doesn't help.
does this make it easier to look at?
|
Very cool. Thats a really neat way to show match stats.
|
That is a super sweet graphic, would be cool is this popped up at the end of game summary instead of some of the useless points Blizzard is assigning... (I get points for making lots of buildings? what?)
|
On December 02 2011 04:16 alteredclone wrote:
One thing to note is that boxer had 14 orbital commands at one point, and his income was often fluctuating. so the income bars almost are irrelevant because there were many times inbetween the 3 minute markers where boxer's income was much higher than tlo's. I wish i had a better way to show this.. total orbital energy or total mules used is something I may include in the next version.
If you added a "Total Mules Used" line graph, I think it would complete the macro graphics, because the assumption is the player not spending on mules is either spending a lot on scans or just isn't keeping his macro up. And I think any SC2 player can figure out how much economy is gained/lost if those mule numbers swing in favor of one player or another.
But it is really well made. There's a ton of information in that graphic.
|
I wish I had more hands so I could give this 4 thumbs upp
|
Nice effort! But since you asked for harsh:
-the supplies in the economy tab have no scale
-the pie charts in the army tab lie, the circle sizes strongly exaggerate higher supplies (because the actual numbers probably correspond with the radii, not the area sizes; this is a common problem when representing one-dimensional data points with 2-dimensional objects)
-the upgrade tab is mostly chartjunk carrying very little actual information, and almost a third of the available space is devoted to it
-the symbol explanations on the right are redundant
I think the whole graphic would be greatly improved by rotating it by 90 degrees. In general, horizontal graphs are more comfortable to read, and it also would enable you to properly caption everything without having to resort to vertical text or clunky constructions with symbols (especially in the upgrade area).
Finally, I would like to recommend Edward Tufte's excellent book "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" to you, THE authoritative work on the subject at hand (it's also a very entertaining read).
|
Nice, I really like it. At first I wasn't sure, but after a few minutes I fell in love with it. Especially the section on the left, I kind of wish it was more prominent, as I feel that information is more important than say the upgrades.
Was it easy to make? If you could put a replay into a program and it throw this out, it's something I'd actually love to see often. Once you're familiar with this I think you'd see a lot
Really creative, nice job.
|
Now that yo uasked what else there could be in chart, how about link to full source? *whistles* Anyways, looks cool and keep up the good work
|
A lot of information to take in, but really cool :D
|
I like the idea but I'm not sure about the execution. It mixes way too many chart types and is not really at-a-glance. Sometimes red is on top of blue, sometimes to the left, and sometimes to the right. Sometimes more bar is better, sometimes less bar is better, sometimes brighter color is better, sometimes line-to-the-right is better. Less importantly, some graphs are cumulative (ex. units killed), while some are per unit of time (ex. income).
Also, upgrades take up way too much of the graphic, and the supply count line is obtuse in meaning (you have to go to the legend all the way on the right side, while for most other graphs the legends are right next to them). There's no need to make headers split color, like "Army Size" and "Units killed". The barracks/factory/starport icons are confusing - I'd rather them be marine/hellion/viking or something.
Some of these are easier to fix than others - like for upgrades, make the line thicker for "more upgrades" rather than darker. But there are some more overarching problems that require a pretty big overhaul, and lots of trial and error with sketches and stuff.
|
Whoa. My mind is blown; this is a fantastic way to show this information.
|
Not to be overly picky, but why is TLO's name The Little One, when his gamer tag is now TLO? Also, why is Slayers Boxer represented with his team name, and TLO isn't? Just some inconsistencies you could fix to make the product even better
|
I can tell the story of the game just from the graph. Never watched the series.
Boxer wins the first fight, but TLO remaxes and gets a stronger economy. Boxer takes out TLO's economy and TLO scares Boxer's SCVs off mining for a second. Boxer wins through economic power. Lots of harass this game.
How close am I?
|
wow great job! maybe make the entire thing bigger?
|
This is really cool, I think that it is such a sweet representation of the game. It took me minute to understand gas and minerals but it makes sense now that I know.
|
I still dont get it, so confusing for me but others seem to get it so good job!
|
Yeah this is great. I would like to see some of this in good casting performances
|
i have to no idea what is going on in this picture, and it makes me feel really stupid
|
|
|
|
|
Holy shit dude that's impressive.
|
On December 02 2011 05:57 Mao wrote:
I think the whole graphic would be greatly improved by rotating it by 90 degrees. In general, horizontal graphs are more comfortable to read, and it also would enable you to properly caption everything without having to resort to vertical text or clunky constructions with symbols (especially in the upgrade area).
.
Agreed. Conventions say that, as an independent variable, time should ALWAYS be the x-axis. That's part of the reason why I think so many people are confused by this graph, since its not laid out like most people are used to. It's also partly why some people like it since it is "different." But that doesn't make it easier to read.
|
can there be an apm graphic in there somewhere?
|
Only problem I can see is the lack of map name. APM would also be insanely cool if stat if blizz hadn't messed it up so hard.
Besides that, its fucking awesome!! Great job
|
Thanks for bringing this to us. I have lots of respect for you work!
|
Awesome! I hope that we can see more of these as they give a good breakdown of the game, but doesn't ruin the value of the replay like reading a written post about a game.
|
thats pretty cool, although the icons on the right could be more intuitive.
|
this doesent tell you anything, if you want to have this at professional level, give better specifics, the economy for example: it tilts up and down but how does it relate to the lead's in the game?? you have to relate all of these specs to something your viewers can relate and understand, it's good btw keep up the good work gj for attempting this.
|
really awesome! look forward to more! <3
|
I think if you made a 16 : 9 version casters wouldn't hesitate to use it!
|
|
|
If you could develop a way to produce these instantly just from inputting the data, it'd become a useful analysis tool. You can make a separate graph showing major engagement breakdowns in terms of duration and supply fluctuations as well as resource losses on both sides, that'd be really cool. Although such a thing probably wouldn't fit onto your preexisting chart format.
|
It looks really cool, wich software you used to create this?
As was already stated before in this thread: I would recommend a hd resolution version, that way the whole picture fits a regular computer screen. You could skim a bit on the headers and footers (300pixel gg looks cool but might be a bit overkill)
|
apply to blizzard. please. PLEASE. i would LOVE to see this after games. also your icons are amazing.
|
Edit: I did want to say this chart IS awesome! However, you wanted constructive criticism, sooooo:
I think a lot of unnecessary space is devoted to upgrades, which could be spent on other things, such as a more detailed view of what's going on in the game. It's basically a big dead zone which is both poor aesthetics and doesn't tell much of the story either (other than that they apparently both went for air units.)
How about count of CC's (actively mining, so you can see when bases get mined out too!), count of Rax, of Factories, and of Starports? That tells a more interesting story AND has a lot less dead space than upgrade info. It gives an at-a-glance idea of build order also
Something like this, but with your cool chart graphics
TLO | Boxer
CC Rax Fact Port | CC Rax Fact Port
1 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 0
etc etc
1 2 1 5 | 3 1 1 6
Note: numbers of bases/buildings totally made up.
You could then remove the "tacked on" bases coming online graphic on the left, and instead "tack on" upgrades in a more compact fashion (perhaps a single column after CC/Rax/Fact/Starport count.)
Later, in my mind:
Hm, I wonder how that same idea i threw out would look for protoss and zerg.
Zerg:
Hatches Tech bldgs Tech lvl
1 - Hatch
2 (Spawning pool)
2 (Roach Warren)
3 Lair
etc?
Hm. Might also want to differentiate between count of hatches and # of mining bases (one is production t he other is income)
|
Very nice production Altered. It feels very much like something you'd see after a live MLG game. Who knows, maybe they'll hire you for something like this .
|
That information is really amazing, the upgrades side especially. I'd like the minerals/Gas split to be a bit more visible?
|
|
|
I liked this, as a person that uses statistics a lot this made a lot of sense to me.
The only thing I can say at the moment is that the min/gas graph is somewhat "cluttered", perhaps you could make it a bit more understandable? Perhaps separating them a bit?
|
Great idea! I like this a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5772047/starcraft-chart-econ-4.gif)
