EPTSQ Leaderboard by Region - Page 15
| Forum Index > News |
|
ArchDC
Malaysia1996 Posts
| ||
|
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
 protoss SQ is probably low because you warp in.... oh well. Huk ftw! | ||
|
butchji
Germany1531 Posts
 | ||
|
phimurth
Canada7 Posts
The other thing I've seen people doing while playing Protoss is that with the warpgate mechanic rather than continuously producing units they will stock pile warpgates and wait for battles to warp in whole defensive armies. This would also lead to a greater amount of floating resources. | ||
|
skrotcyk
Sweden432 Posts
On October 29 2011 22:13 Aim Here wrote: Not really. The SQ doesn't care what the money is spent on, as long as it's spent. Overmaking production structures would, if anything, tend to increase the SQ artificially (in relation to game skill, since it's a mistake) because macro mistakes and missed production cycles would be more easily forgiven. People have already noted that Protoss tends to float resources between production cycles, just due to the nature of the warpgate mechanic, and then spend it all at once, whereas, with other races, it's easier to just build a single unit immediately you have the resources for it. That's the most likely cause of a slight deficit here. have you ever played zerg? u always inject in cycles which means u will also float resources as zerg between production cycles. It's only terran this doesn't affect because they can stuck up units as fast they get more minerals. I'd say Ret and idrA is up there only cos they are macro beasts and have superior macro than the others. | ||
|
nate_v
United States14 Posts
Also something that might be interesting if you got a large enough data set for a few players, you could use a Fourier transform (FFT command on MATLAB) and determine what the frequency modes of their macro is, e.g. the numerical difference for how they do in tourney's vs ladder. Really cool study. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
|
Maxtor
United Kingdom273 Posts
| ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
I would love to see top level averages for each race in a similar fashion to what you did with each player as a comparison between the races (not to say "X race players all suck", but to merely observe what levels of SQ are considered top-level for each race; certainly, it would be different for each race because of the vastly different mechanics). | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
| ||
|
Flew
United Kingdom133 Posts
I want to add a plea for people to come forward and do the data collection for the other servers. I can't wait to see how the Koreans will do! Unfortunately, the only way to collect the data (that we know of at the moment) is to use the GM ladder in Battlenet and look at the match history for players, and note down the data in Excel. It takes a couple of hours, but it's worth it. The MLG tournament analysis is really interesting and it's nice to see that players seem to up their skill for a big event. I'm glad that people are checking out their own SQs. I've been using this to inspire me and since I've been noting down my SQ after each game my average has gone from 45 to 65. Some important things I want to note about game length though: 1.If the average income is less than 600, this game is disarded as the results aren't reliable enough for calculation SQ (see whatthefat's previous thread). 2. If your income is over 2000, then the calculation of SQ is very forgiving - you can have an upspent minerals of over 2000 and still have a good SQ score. This way, even if you're maxed out, it's not going to suddenly drop your SQ score unless you sit there for several minutes with 200 supply doing nothing. The pro's would be attacking and rebuilding their army at this point, so it's not going to make SQ less meaningful just because you hit max. In short - the mechanic used for recording SQ already takes into account the differences in very short and very long games. Also, for people wanting to measure their macro skills, the other easily measurable variable is number of workers (and number of workers per minute). At lower levels, you may be spending your money, but you will still struggle if your number of workers is low. On October 29 2011 15:25 d9mmdi wrote: as you found out that your SQ is only one side of the coin (see Huk) maybe you could device a similar measure for control by using the units lost / resources lost data. Would probably require similar effort to normalize but would be interesting if you can analyze players in different categories. Might even be used in the predictor project to increase accuracy. I think this is a great idea to analyse effiency - e.g. units killed versus units lost, but the data in the game summary is "units trained" and "killed units" and I think it would require "resources lost" to make any useful comparison. Zerg would lose out horribly because they lose so many zerglings. | ||
|
StarBrift
Sweden1761 Posts
| ||
|
Dodgin
Canada39254 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Top 3 control bitches : ) | ||
|
prodromus
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
Flamingo777
United States1190 Posts
| ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
| ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
Amazing analysis, great work! | ||
|
zyce
United States649 Posts
| ||
|
Nazeron
Canada1046 Posts
| ||
|
89vision
United States70 Posts
You know there's something there when the author can point out flaws in the theory, and it's still a strong idea. | ||
| ||
