I don't know about all his other posts but this post is amazing, and I would think almost worthy of a Star, it seems like you put a ton of effort in to helping the community.

Edit: Hahaha the post above me thinks so too!

Kid-Fox

Canada400 Posts

September 16 2011 23:22 GMT

#483

On September 17 2011 07:38 dsousa wrote:
Great analysis. My only gripe would be that a big part of the reason why Grandmaster have much better macro, is because they are better in all the other area's of the game, like decision making and unit management during battles, which in tern makes their macro better (ie: not losing worker, having to build extra units etc)

The data helps to define "standard" play, but simply macro'ing like a Grandmaster, will not make you a grandmaster.... in fact, unless you have Grandmaster micro and decision making, there is no way you can have grandmaster macro, because your opponent won't let you.

No, that's backwards. You first develop macro and then focus on every other area. Macro is fundamental to skilled play. Of course you need to develop micromanagement, decision making, build orders, and minimap watching, but all while maintaining GM level micro.

On topic though, can you do more pro examples like Idra? =D

captainwaffles

United States1050 Posts

September 16 2011 23:23 GMT

#484

Best thing I read today, If I had a medal, you wouldn't get it because I like medals but great work!

Sanchez_

Australia40 Posts

September 16 2011 23:23 GMT

#485

Post of the year, so freaking impressive!

Evangelist

1246 Posts

September 16 2011 23:26 GMT

#486

I would like to see this expanded into reasons why worker counts rise between Master and GM. Does it correspond with expansion timings?

nitdkim

1264 Posts

September 16 2011 23:34 GMT

#487

Mmm, I think a protoss player or terran's SQ will be even higher than Idra because zerg race always banks 2k minerals even if you're macroing well. Zergs tend not to make extra hatcheries to spend larve on zerglings.

mechavoc

United States664 Posts

September 16 2011 23:41 GMT

#488

This is a huge help nice work!

CDRdude

United States5625 Posts

September 16 2011 23:42 GMT

#489

Fascinating stuff. Good work

Thor-axe the Impaler

United States331 Posts

September 16 2011 23:43 GMT

#490

There should be scholarships for the guys who do this kind of stuff.

tshred

18 Posts

September 16 2011 23:45 GMT

#491

Pretty good way of seeing if you are spending your money, but I don't think SQ takes into account worker saturation/ number of bases/ number of production buildings. So you could have 30 workers with like 7 gateways on 1 base giving you a SQ of GM. While you could also have 60 workers on 2 bases giving you high SQ as well.

Basically, SQ is only an indicator on how well you spend your money, not how good your macro is. A plat player could be going 1 base with 7 gateways giving him a GM SQ, but that does not mean his macro is GM level. There are other things that factor into macro such as worker saturation, number of bases, number of production buildings, etc.

lefty

United States1896 Posts

September 16 2011 23:46 GMT

#492

This shit is wrong

GhandiEAGLE

United States20754 Posts

September 16 2011 23:48 GMT

#493

Wow, this is very impressive. Great work!

lefty

United States1896 Posts

September 16 2011 23:48 GMT

#494

nvm this shit is right!

ScrubbleS

United States74 Posts

September 16 2011 23:48 GMT

#495

LEGIT

jinorazi

Korea (South)4948 Posts

September 16 2011 23:49 GMT

#496

yes i do macro like a pro apparently...now i just need to work on everything else.

LagT_T

Argentina535 Posts

September 16 2011 23:50 GMT

#497

Thank you whatthefat

Ettick

United States2434 Posts

September 16 2011 23:51 GMT

#498

amazing post!!!

figq

12519 Posts

September 16 2011 23:55 GMT

#499

I wonder what is the relationship between SQ (in a game) and win/loss outcome, for a particular player. So far my very quick impression is that SQ is higher when losing (people are pushed to the wall and macro like there's no tomorrow), whereas when winning people may tend to afford to be less efficient with their resource spending, on average. Moreover, because I've seen it happen in progaming, even to Koreans, I suppose if true this would scale up to all levels of play.

imareaver3

United States906 Posts

September 16 2011 23:55 GMT

#500

It's cool, and the stuff on GM and pro players is awesome, but I think that the non-GM data was drawn in a really, well, flawed manner. Divisions aren't equal at all, so looking at league differences using one randomly selected division is prone to massive inaccuracies; for example, choosing a brand-new masters division and comparing it to an old diamond division will result in diamond and masters players looking very similar--because the masters division is entirely composed of players who, as of last week, were in diamond. Sure, they'll be better; they got the promotion, but not as much better as actual old-school masters players; the masters division will contain few mid-, and no high-masters players.