EPTSQ Leaderboard by Region - Page 12
| Forum Index > News |
|
shammythefox
United Kingdom286 Posts
| ||
CBenni
12 Posts
I have an avg sq of 78 and im gold. My max was 94, and about 30% of my games are in grandmaster level SQs. The problem is, I dont get the right units and i get them too slow, eventhough in a lot of games my income is almost equivalent to a masters player. Another thing is that i loose a ton of games vs harassment, dts, mutas etc. Thats what really is important in SC2, the SQ is almost nothing; I wish it were different  In top notch pro levels, the SQ doesnt tell alot either. Obviously you cant win mlg w/ a spending quotient of 30, but it does not matter if you have 90 or 100, as the scale is nonlinear, especially for high SQs and Avg Incomes. | ||
|
Erandorr
2283 Posts
| ||
|
Tal0n
United States175 Posts
| ||
|
rpgalon
Brazil1069 Posts
you can't use SQ to compare players from diferent races. that is obvious. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
Well obviously? He doesn't have any minerals, so it'll be through the roof! | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
From what I saw, great post ! | ||
|
Math.random();
433 Posts
http://beijers.eu/share/sq.html with this formula + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dGY3J.png) | ||
|
mrlie3
Canada350 Posts
Btw, in AM server, EGDeMusLiM is actually EGPuma (or shared account with Puma from what I heard), and BcuzofuProS is FnaticRain. Shared account between progamers might be the reason some players have different SQ between two servers or between ladder and tournament. | ||
|
Cosmology
Canada360 Posts
I think if idra was Terran or toss his sq would be highest. | ||
|
Lewan72
United States381 Posts
| ||
|
Legatus
65 Posts
On October 29 2011 23:46 Cosmology wrote: How can SQbe accurate for Zerg? Zerg is based around pooling minerals in the mid game to make 15+ units at a time. And In late game you must pool enough minerals to insta remax. I think if idra was Terran or toss his sq would be highest. How would IdrA's SQ be the highest as Protoss? You need to let resources accumulate until you warp in a whole production cycle. Did you miss the whole discussion in this thread of why Protoss players have lower SQs? | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 29 2011 23:07 CBenni wrote: Sadly, SQ isnt anything at all. I have an avg sq of 78 and im gold. My max was 94, and about 30% of my games are in grandmaster level SQs. The problem is, I dont get the right units and i get them too slow, eventhough in a lot of games my income is almost equivalent to a masters player. Another thing is that i loose a ton of games vs harassment, dts, mutas etc. Thats what really is important in SC2, the SQ is almost nothing; I wish it were different In top notch pro levels, the SQ doesnt tell alot either. Obviously you cant win mlg w/ a spending quotient of 30, but it does not matter if you have 90 or 100, as the scale is nonlinear, especially for high SQs and Avg Incomes. This likely has to do with a lower overall income, not poor unit selection. It's still poor macro. It's funny, since I first read this guys theory I've noticed it a lot in the score screens of my 4v4r games. The higher the league the player is, you'll see a higher income generated and lower floated mineral total at the end. And it's rather significant. The gap between gold -> masters (the range of players i play) is almost entirely macro oriented, not micro like most people at the gold level tend to think. Sure, micro comes into play at times, but in general terms, the better macro players get higher rankings in the end. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
|
DanSouthy
United Kingdom5 Posts
| ||
|
Usagi
Spain1647 Posts
The different production cicles for each race mean we should analyze more data to find trends, and in the end it should result in finding a factor to weigh the results depending on each race. I for example find that the way terran can queue up units in their production buildings can be also an underlying factor to a higher SQ. What to do? analyze more data, find trends, and then find a weighing factor for each race. I like this article a lot! +1 | ||
|
Usagi
Spain1647 Posts
On October 30 2011 00:22 hypercube wrote: Very impressive analysis. The next frontier seems to be distinguishing between deliberate pooling and macro slips. That should be put into thought, and simply remove from the sample every game that goes above a certain parameters like, money piling when some player is 200/200 | ||
|
sirrobert5
United Kingdom62 Posts
 . Just a couple of points that maybe dont show up in the analysis:1.SQ probably scewed in Terrans favour by their ability to queue units 2.SQ might disfavour the other two races slightly more, due to the 'rounds of units' mechanic used by Protoss and Zerg (Warpgate rounds and production rounds after lava injects) Hard to say how to account for these problems though  Overall great stuff, nice to see how in-depth we can start to quantify a players ability to macro. Also good to see my fellow Brit DeMuslim topping the charts | ||
|
durza
United States667 Posts
| ||
|
Champi
1422 Posts
Thanks, good to know :D j/k this is an amazing piece of work and its clear uve spent some time and brainpower on it, i dont believe any of ur findings really prove anything or make any sort of ground breaking discovery in terms of how skill works and winning in sc2 works or anything like that, but it is deffinitely interesting information to play around with | ||
| ||
