|
On September 17 2011 09:44 ButtCraft wrote:
My average over the last 10 games is 77.4 which puts me on the high end of Master League according to his scale.
-1000 pt master
Pretty accurate analysis, I would say. Even more evidence that macro is the largest difference between good and bad players.
i agree with the this for terran (bio play).
but: the warpgate mechanic lets you have overmins automatically since you hardly can spend all minerals - in lategame, even with 30 gateways you will get to 2k/1k or so constantly.
as zerg, you cannot spend all minerals in most cases since you leak gas. Same goes for terran mech.
therefore, i do not agree overmins/income are the only factors to "macro"
|
redacted for serious posting at a joke post
|
On September 17 2011 09:59 mosestoazis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 09:30 Jaeger wrote:Are those ingame minutes or real minutes on that chart? Ret gets 80 drones by 5 minutes? If that's in game minutes 14/13 gets ling speed at around 5 minutes.  i've seen him fully saturate a couple bases in that time, and if you're droning that hard you're going to lose/rebuild a bunch defending early pressure
again, it was a fun post. next time, i make it more obvious or just dont post such stuff. sry
|
On September 17 2011 09:38 tshred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 09:06 ScrubS wrote:
I dont get the SQ stuff, I calculated mine from 3 random games in my match history and i had an average of 93. You are suggesting that with such a high SQ number, i shouldn't focus on my macro because I am able to spent my resources? Or is it more an indicator of macro capabilities rather than your actual skill? I guess that just depends on the number of games you analyze? It's just an indicator of how well you spend your money. There are other hidden factors for macro that can't be calculated mathematically such as expansion timings, worker saturation compared to the number of bases, number of production facilities, etc. These other factors affect your macro in addition to how well you spend your money. To determine if your macro is good enough, you'll need to examine some information about your games. If you are below diamond league, then for the most part you could still work on macro. For the games that you lost, compare your income to your opponents. If you have a high SQ, but your income is lower than your opponent, then you still need to work on your macro. If your income is about the same or greater than your opponent and you still lost the game, then there was probably some decision making or micro error that might've cost you the game.
Could an equation be made to factor the length of the game into the SQ calculation?
I'm not a mathematician, but it seems to me that we could use the data in the game to formulate an expected income at a given time in the game. So if we look at the numbers and it shows that GMs average an income of 1350 at 12 minutes, but Gold players average an income of 950 at 12 minutes. It could highlight a weakness in Gold macro and affect the SQ negatively. So a Gold player with a really high SQ at 15 minutes because they're 4-gating for the whole game til max, would actually have their SQ drop because they aren't generating an expected income.
|
Just got home and started going through some of my recent games plugging in numbers.
I should focus on macro I guess.
I'm at 955 Master right now and my average score for games longer than 6-7 minutes is ~65.
Not only is that low for masters in general, it's below the average for Diamond.
I suck at macro @@
|
You sir deserve a medal! This is one of the best TL posts I have read ever, I am now calculating my SQ!
|
Before school year - 83 average mid master
After school year - 63 average
As many people have stated, school is definitely a cause for skill degradation.
|
Amazing thread, very good analysis!
|
I'm confused. I just input my last 10 games into excel with this formula.
I received a mean score of 69, Median of 74, with a Deviation from Mean of 10.25
Meaning, as I read the chart, I should be about somewhere in the middle of Master league.
I'm low plat.
What gives?
My thoughts are that the formula, as noted by other posters, doesn't include Game Length and/or Worker Count into it's calculations. I'm not skilled enough in math to rework the formula (I think), but if you could somehow do this, I'd love to see what it spits out, then.
Otherwise, maybe I'm just an outlier and my main problems lie someplace other than macro.
|
On September 17 2011 09:59 DiaBoLuS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 09:44 ButtCraft wrote:
My average over the last 10 games is 77.4 which puts me on the high end of Master League according to his scale.
-1000 pt master
Pretty accurate analysis, I would say. Even more evidence that macro is the largest difference between good and bad players. i agree with the this for terran (bio play). but: the warpgate mechanic lets you have overmins automatically since you hardly can spend all minerals - in lategame, even with 30 gateways you will get to 2k/1k or so constantly. as zerg, you cannot spend all minerals in most cases since you leak gas. Same goes for terran mech. therefore, i do not agree overmins/income are the only factors to "macro"
Yeah, Protoss and Zerg will have more overmins than Terran because both have mechanics that make supply in bursts where as Terran can queue up everything
|
Awesome thread, I will keep track of my SQ from now on lol
My last 10 games:
70,9 won
70,5 won
57,8 won
74,5 won
51,5 lost
60,7 lost
72 lost
63,4 won
52,7 won
60,5 won
Average> 63,45
I am low diamond, so it seems just right.
-------------
If this works indeed, and it seems to work, then we can finally calculate what is the exact difference in skill between Americas, Koreans, Europeans and Pros *-*
DO IT!
|
On September 17 2011 10:34 Reithan wrote:
I'm confused. I just input my last 10 games into excel with this formula.
I received a mean score of 69, Median of 74, with a Deviation from Mean of 10.25
Meaning, as I read the chart, I should be about somewhere in the middle of Master league.
I'm low plat.
What gives?
My thoughts are that the formula, as noted by other posters, doesn't include Game Length and/or Worker Count into it's calculations. I'm not skilled enough in math to rework the formula (I think), but if you could somehow do this, I'd love to see what it spits out, then.
Otherwise, maybe I'm just an outlier and my main problems lie someplace other than macro.
If you stay on 1 base and keep your money really low you will end up with a pretty good score even though in reality you'd have pretty terrible macro.
My guess would be that you don't expand nearly enough and that you stop making workers and or are very spotty with your worker production.
I suggest checking your workers produced and compare it to the chart the OP provided. It might be telling. Let us know if you figure it out.
|
you have a lot of free time OP.
|
This is just amazing,
I'm going to check on my SQ immediately
|
amazing.. pretty colours too!
|
Can't wait to see your 1000th post.
|
On September 17 2011 10:43 SDream wrote:
Awesome thread, I will keep track of my SQ from now on lol
My last 10 games:
70,9 won
70,5 won
57,8 won
74,5 won
51,5 lost
60,7 lost
72 lost
63,4 won
52,7 won
60,5 won
Average> 63,45
I am low diamond, so it seems just right.
Mine is 64 and I'm in gold. TT
|
Well done! This was very interesting.
|
@stanik Just ran the numbers:
My Mean Worker Production Rate is 3.99/min
My Median Worker Production Rate is 3.98/min
My Deviation from Mean is 0.77
....so....I make drones better than a Grandmaster??
And I spend my money at a mid-master level??
WHY THE HELL AM I PLAT???
|
This is amazing. well done sir. I wont actually read all of this now, but when i do i will surely enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
