On October 29 2011 11:15 K3Nyy wrote:
Protoss' SQ is lower because there's really nothing you can sink your money into in between cycles.

Terran's SQ should be higher because they can queue units.

Goody being anywhere on a list of being good at spending is proof of this.
A terran can just mass queue units without needing to be spending efficiently and they come across as having a good SQ.

Ryps

Romania2740 Posts

October 29 2011 09:59 GMT

#164

Maybe you shouldnt put european players on the american bracket, theres a lot of double players there.
Otherwise great read ~!

MadNeSs

Denmark1507 Posts

October 29 2011 10:06 GMT

#165

Is Faith fayth from bw? If he even plays starcraft anymore, that is...

LittLeD

Sweden7973 Posts

October 29 2011 10:10 GMT

#166

I'm blown away. Whatthefat, you could be TL's own analytical headmaster. The Data Lord.

MtlGuitarist97

United States1539 Posts

October 29 2011 10:10 GMT

#167

Imo Zerg's SQ is actually little bit DEFLATED but that's just my opinion. Larva mechanic keeps them locked and They can't just throw down extra production facilities haphazardly. That's an interesting find if that is true for the Protoss players, but it might just be attributed to the fact that the warp gate mechanic does hinder their spending. Either way great write up, I really liked this and I'm going to post this on the battle.net forums if you don't mind! (A link that is

)

ChadMann

Australia128 Posts

October 29 2011 10:13 GMT

#168

This method of macro comparison is broken.. and doesn't consider fundamental elements involved in the act of 'Macro'.. such as the race requirements of spending money.. 200/200 situations.

Interesting concept - and its almost there.. but the mathematical problem is not solved with this formula.

aiuradun

Denmark115 Posts

October 29 2011 10:16 GMT

#169

Very Nice read good job

bennni

Iceland27 Posts

October 29 2011 10:21 GMT

#170

Love these threads, read it all. Hope to see Nestea's SQ ^^, Maybe you can use his Blizzcon results?

Gesperrt

Germany417 Posts

October 29 2011 10:24 GMT

#171

amazing.. thank you for putting so much work in this

Cold-Blood

United States200 Posts

October 29 2011 10:26 GMT

#172

When I read this last night I knew it had to be some sort of amazing analysis that I couldn't fully under how good it was.

When I got on this morning and saw it on the front page I knew I was right. haha great write up!!!

ravemir

Portugal595 Posts

October 29 2011 10:34 GMT

#173

Love to see the SQ being adopted as a "semi-official" measuring stick

weedhydra

28 Posts

October 29 2011 10:37 GMT

#174

Good read.

Allbinator

Canada12 Posts

October 29 2011 10:39 GMT

#175

This is the most hilarious objectification of one primary skill in SC2. I just got trolled hard for the 5 minutes I actually spent looking this over. Thx

Why not analyze something meaningful like amp redundancy or how many times a player drools during a tournament game. How about, how many TvT are won with absolutely no micro, or analyze effective use of ctrl groups based on categories of unit compositions, anything but this BSQ. Like today, did TLO maintain groups of 7 vikings while they were being torn out of the sky by zerg after he opened with very fast muta den?

User was temp banned for this post.

Gladiator6

Sweden7024 Posts

October 29 2011 10:45 GMT

#176

Really impressive by DeMusliM and Rets, soo high those few games O_O

SQ was off the roof

AveranceEU

Germany23 Posts

October 29 2011 10:56 GMT

#177

I really would like to see a comparison of the servers across all the leagues!
Great write-up, though!

Sanguinarius

United States3427 Posts

October 29 2011 10:57 GMT

#178

I love your application of stats and math to differentiate pros spending. These are such interesting results. Thanks so much for putting in the time to do this.

Lonyo

United Kingdom3884 Posts

October 29 2011 11:00 GMT

#179

The amusing thing is that while it should be a totall broken method of measuring things that shouldn't be applicable generally and should have pretty different results depending on race, in theory, the fact is that what seems obvious on the outside (terran having easiest time, zerg and protoss having a harder time due to mechanics), it doesn't seem to actually matter, and it actually seems to provide a meaningful result when you use many games and average out the numbers.

It's one of those things which should never work, but does seem to in practice.

It might be interesting to compare the top 10 terrans to the top 10 protosses to the top 10 zergs and see how that impacts things, and maybe consider the implications of a scaling method to cover comparisons between races, since there should be differences in theory.