EPTSQ Leaderboard by Region - Page 19
| Forum Index > News |
|
OminouS
Sweden1343 Posts
| ||
|
SnowK
United States245 Posts
| ||
|
kidynamite
13 Posts
There has also been lots of post commenting on how different races have different macro mechanics and that different play styles that is unique to their own race making the SQ inaccurate. My view is that as of now the idea of SQ is a great one and in its early stage my take some tweaking to the way its calculated to provide an absolute quotient for comparison across all races. The way the SQ is right now still works nicely, in that it should be used as a comparison between players of the same race with some sort of benchmark. For example, in baseball you would have your pitcher's whose skill level is rated by stats such as 'ERA' or '# of strikeouts', whereas a batter's value to its team would be measured by stats such as 'HR', 'RBI', etc. Perhaps a more relevant analogy would be in basketball, where all the players are measured with the same stats such as points, assists, rebounds, steals, blocks, turnovers, etc. but certain statistics are valued higher for certain positions. For example, assists, steals and points are more relevant to a point guards but for the center blocks and rebounds are more relevant. It is not useful to compare a point guard's stats with a center's stats, but instead it is more useful to compare point guard's stats are against each other. In the same sense, it would not be useful to compare a terran player's stats with a zerg player's stats. Sorry for the long winded explanation, but that's my 2 cents on the discussion. | ||
|
OminouS
Sweden1343 Posts
On November 01 2011 10:00 SnowK wrote: Interesting that the max seems to be 116 so far. Is there anything special in regards to that result? "...and an astounding 121(!) by DroneKing (LiquidRet)." | ||
|
tgun
434 Posts
On November 01 2011 12:10 OminouS wrote: "...and an astounding 121(!) by DroneKing (LiquidRet)." Getting anywhere above 100 is taxing as hell, and usually detrimental to overall gameplay. I played a game where I, essentially, only worried about my SQ. High drone count, low minerals at all times. You then realise how many times you will stockpile minerals to pop out a bunch of a new unit: infestors, as your research ticks over. You stockpile money to pop a large amount of banes in case of an attack, etc. I ended the game with a 118, but it was one of the harder victories I've had in a long time, purely due to the fact that I never floated money to pop a large amount of tech, and had more drones than I'm usually comfortable with. Your SQ will not be too high, unless your drone count is high, due to the way it's calculated. | ||
|
IMLyte
Canada714 Posts
| ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 01 2011 13:00 Mutality wrote: Great article it seems you really put a lot of work into it. It makes sense that IdrA had an SQ of 96 at MLG but i still don't understand why Huk scored comparatively low at 79 Well he mentioned the protoss in MLG in general scored lower SQ. | ||
|
89andy
Canada192 Posts
On November 01 2011 06:49 imbecile wrote: Just shows that queuing is an incredible tool to keep up your macro while yo u need to attend to other things. Also a good explanation why terrans tend to gave the best SQs, and protoss the worst: All terrran production is queued, so it is easiest for them to have constant production and cushion slip-ups. Most protoss production is from Warp-ins. Not only can't it be queued, it also requires direct vision and attention on the battlefield and sometimes rewards not spending and build up warpgate count. The zerg larva production is in between in how much player attention and involvement it requires. While there aren't queues to keep up the production times for you, stockpiling larva can make up for previous slip-ups to a degree. In short, it is easiest to be efficient with terran production, as long as you know when, what and how many structures to build. The efficient automatic use and allocation of production slots more than makes up for temporarily tying resources into the queue. Terran production is most forgiving with the timing of the production button presses. That and idra doesn't give a damn about ladder. His avg of 96 SQ in an MLG shows that clearly. | ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3813 Posts
On November 01 2011 03:16 KurtSib wrote: Why doesn't that assumption exist for the Idra ladder vs. Idra tournament comparison? One could argue that it does, one could also argue that IdrA is better when laddering because there is no pressure. It is based on the assumptions whether or not to use a 1.tailed t-test. But it is ALWAYS (99%) okay to just use a 2.tailed t-test The conclusion that the difference in the means are statistically significant is correct but not really really strong (I assume he chose a 5% alpha level) because p-value<alpha but not by more than 0.03. So yes, a t-value would make it so you could test whether or not this also was the case with 1.tailed t-test. It is however ironic that if you assume IdrA is playing equally in ladder and tournament, you can conclude he doesn't. However if you assume he is better in tournaments, you are probably not gonna come to the same conclusion | ||
|
growlizing
Norway122 Posts
On October 31 2011 22:14 ForgottenOne wrote: It's nice to see my average SQ close to Sheth's, my min SQ in low Masters and my high SQ about Ret's average. Now I know I don't need to macro better and instead I should actually start learning some timings and maybe to control my units... Haha, same. I'm high diamond zerg now and my SQ avg for last 30 games is 83, a high of 97 and low of 67, with avg income of 1593 over these 30 games. | ||
|
KurtSib
United States4 Posts
On November 01 2011 20:39 Grovbolle wrote: One could argue that it does, one could also argue that IdrA is better when laddering because there is no pressure. It is based on the assumptions whether or not to use a 1.tailed t-test. But it is ALWAYS (99%) okay to just use a 2.tailed t-test The conclusion that the difference in the means are statistically significant is correct but not really really strong (I assume he chose a 5% alpha level) because p-value<alpha but not by more than 0.03. So yes, a t-value would make it so you could test whether or not this also was the case with 1.tailed t-test. It is however ironic that if you assume IdrA is playing equally in ladder and tournament, you can conclude he doesn't. However if you assume he is better in tournaments, you are probably not gonna come to the same conclusion Very cool. Thanks for the help. | ||
|
Hapse
Denmark50 Posts
 | ||
|
JaKaTaKSc2
United States2787 Posts
| ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
On November 01 2011 14:24 89andy wrote: That and idra doesn't give a damn about ladder. His avg of 96 SQ in an MLG shows that clearly. Not even mentioning that money in queues actually hides inefficient spending from the SQ. | ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3813 Posts
After revising my answer I see that the bolded paragraph is total bullshit, IF you assume that IdrA is better at tournaments you need LESS signifcant results to conclude that he is better at tournaments. So using a 1.tailed t-test would give the same conclusion as a 2.tailed t-test in this example. sorry for the confusion | ||
|
Insomni7
667 Posts
| ||
|
DrDevice
Canada132 Posts
On November 02 2011 23:26 Insomni7 wrote: Don't be an ass, it is not everyone else's job to read for you and then spoonfeed the information to you.I don't quite understand how SQ is calculated using the average unspent resources and the average income. It isnt a direct proportion. Maybe this was in the previous article. Anyway it would be nice to be able to calculate this for my own games. His first article talks in detail about how the calculation is done. There are several links to it in the original post of this thread, yet there are people like you asking for it on every page. IMO TL should ban people for making posts that clearly show they did not read the thread before posting. Some forums have this policy and it makes it a lot more worthwhile to read beyond the original post. The original post of this thread is so well thought out and written, and the discussion goes to shit before the end of the first page because moderator expectations are so low here. Sorry to go on a rant but I just think it's really too bad how real discussion on TL is so buried under pages of posts like the one I quoted. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
| ||
|
Insomni7
667 Posts
On November 03 2011 08:22 Vladimir wrote: Don't be an ass, it is not everyone else's job to read for you and then spoonfeed the information to you. His first article talks in detail about how the calculation is done. There are several links to it in the original post of this thread, yet there are people like you asking for it on every page. IMO TL should ban people for making posts that clearly show they did not read the thread before posting. Some forums have this policy and it makes it a lot more worthwhile to read beyond the original post. The original post of this thread is so well thought out and written, and the discussion goes to shit before the end of the first page because moderator expectations are so low here. Sorry to go on a rant but I just think it's really too bad how real discussion on TL is so buried under pages of posts like the one I quoted. If you think that this post does anymore for the forum than mine, than you would be mistaken. Frankly I wouldn't mind seeing people banned for making offtopic rants in the middle of discussions about the original post. If you look there is actually nothing in the original post about how this value was calculated. Ill take a look at the first post, but calm down buddy, you sound mad.  | ||
|
nucLeaRTV
Romania822 Posts
| ||
| ||
