EPT5 stars if it was a blog
Do you macro like a pro? - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
monx
Canada1400 Posts
5 stars if it was a blog | ||
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
| ||
|
MapleLeafSirup
Germany950 Posts
How the hell do I get the data off replays? I tried sc2 gears but this programm isn't providing "average income" or "average unspent resources" | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
| ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On September 17 2011 03:39 MapleLeafSirup wrote: This is probably a stupid question but: How the hell do I get the data off replays? I tried sc2 gears but this programm isn't providing "average income" or "average unspent resources" Open up SC2 and go into your match history, and manually go through the last 20 games or so. | ||
|
sVnteen
Germany2238 Posts
bronze players have 10k overmids with 500 income? i cant believe that tbh but GREAT WORK due i would be dead after working so much for 1 thread  | ||
|
luftwaffle5
United States6 Posts
Super informative! | ||
|
MadNote
Lesotho75 Posts
On September 17 2011 03:39 MapleLeafSirup wrote: This is probably a stupid question but: How the hell do I get the data off replays? I tried sc2 gears but this programm isn't providing "average income" or "average unspent resources" In the match history in BNET. After a game is over and it goes over to the score screen, click on the resources tab. The "average income" and "average unspent resources" are there. Great read! That was an incredible amount of work you put into it and I don't envy you for waiting for BNET to show all those score screens! You must have the patience of a saint  | ||
|
xai_death
Netherlands65 Posts
. | ||
|
mr17hz
United States33 Posts
| ||
|
GogoKodo
Canada1785 Posts
I wonder if there would be any interesting findings if the data was sub-divided by matchups instead of just race. | ||
|
ranjutan
United States636 Posts
| ||
|
The_Piper42
United States426 Posts
| ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On September 17 2011 03:41 Amui wrote: Open up SC2 and go into your match history, and manually go through the last 20 games or so. Haha maybe if the web site actually showed full match details, we could write a bot to parse this info automatically. But I think even SC2 gears could calculate both figures too from replay data. | ||
|
NewbieOne
Poland560 Posts
| ||
|
Supert0fu
United States499 Posts
| ||
|
mucker
United States1120 Posts
| ||
|
perestain
Germany308 Posts
You just presented an easy to use quantitative measure of how well macro was, which can be calculated for every game directly from the results screen on battlenet. This has the potential to become by far the most objective indicator for how much someone is improving his macro. Good players can even use it to compare the macro efficiency of different builds with it. I am speechless. It is actually a brilliant idea to analyse average unspent ressources as a function of income, thereby completely avoiding the problem that the average unspent ressources value alone as it is shown is not really comparable between games of different length. It would be nice if sc2gears was picking up on the SQ-quotient so everybody can conveniently track his development. Overall the most beautiful thing about it is that you dont even need to parse a replay to get the most practical information. Ingenuity beats data overkill. On September 17 2011 02:21 templar rage wrote: I'd actually love to see a game with a SQ of 100, if it's even possible. Values over 100 are possible and were recorded, according to the distribution in the histogram. The reference values just represent the peak positions. | ||
|
AA.spoon
Belgium331 Posts
On September 17 2011 03:26 TolEranceNA wrote: That was just one game, i can simply get a game where my opponent left right away and give me 150 SQ. I took a sample of 12 games, the last games I played in tournaments (in advanced rounds). I have 86.5 average. So idra's result is absolutely not impressing. Weirdly enough, the game with the lowest score 79.1, was a very short game in which I did a 4 gate + prism against a 1-1-1. I macroed very well in that game. It seems your formula isn't well adapted for short games. | ||
|
The Touch
United Kingdom667 Posts
Now, I'm not sure how effective that sort of play is at higher levels, or at least how likely it is that you get away with not losing much of your army for a while. It could be that you have the opportunity to spend more money in higher level games, because better opponents don't leave you unmolested while you add production builidings. It could be that all levels are affected by this to a reasonably similar degree, in which case it all comes out in the wash anyway. | ||
| ||
