|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On September 17 2011 19:25 kickapoo wrote:
Awesome posting!
However, I think it would be even greater, someone would be able to derive some potential fields of improvement for their own playstyle.
Therefore I gathered also the data about my opponents and matched their SQ with my own and whether the game resultet in a win or loss.
(I know that having only 20 samples is a very weak point, I would like to discuss it nonetheless.)
Leaque Platinum (nearly all opponents as well)
Win ratio for the samples: 40%
Avg Game length: 21.85 min
My average SQ: 62.26 (+- 7.21)
Opponents avg SQ: 58.20 (+-12.73)
My SQ was higher in 65% of the games than my opponents one
In 60% of the games, whoever had the higher SQ, did win the game
My own conclusion from this data would be, that dispite often having a higher SQ than my opponents I lost 60% of the games. It seems, that I am often not able to make my makro advantage the game winning factor.
Therefore, I guess the conclusion can be that I loose to other factors like decision making, micro, harrassement.
Do you think it is possible to make these kind of conclusions from this kind of data? Or is it too much interpretation with too weak data (too small sample)?
Regards
It's a misuse of what SQ is about. SQ represents ability to keep your money low. In theory, you could never make probes and just make pylons every time you hit 100 minerals and have a low SQ... only if you have a lot of scv production shoudl you begin thinking about using SQ to focus your own studies.
|
QUANTITATIVE REPOOORRRTTSSSS
|
I randomly took 5 games I played these last 2 weeks: I think these are 2 loses and 3 wins
76
87
83
93
87
average: 85
master league... there is a huge difference between top master league and bottom master league imo.
|
Holy fucking shit. what a pro post
|
|
|
On September 17 2011 19:42 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 19:25 kickapoo wrote:
Awesome posting!
However, I think it would be even greater, someone would be able to derive some potential fields of improvement for their own playstyle.
Therefore I gathered also the data about my opponents and matched their SQ with my own and whether the game resultet in a win or loss.
(I know that having only 20 samples is a very weak point, I would like to discuss it nonetheless.)
Leaque Platinum (nearly all opponents as well)
Win ratio for the samples: 40%
Avg Game length: 21.85 min
My average SQ: 62.26 (+- 7.21)
Opponents avg SQ: 58.20 (+-12.73)
My SQ was higher in 65% of the games than my opponents one
In 60% of the games, whoever had the higher SQ, did win the game
My own conclusion from this data would be, that dispite often having a higher SQ than my opponents I lost 60% of the games. It seems, that I am often not able to make my makro advantage the game winning factor.
Therefore, I guess the conclusion can be that I loose to other factors like decision making, micro, harrassement.
Do you think it is possible to make these kind of conclusions from this kind of data? Or is it too much interpretation with too weak data (too small sample)?
Regards It's a misuse of what SQ is about. SQ represents ability to keep your money low. In theory, you could never make probes and just make pylons every time you hit 100 minerals and have a low SQ... only if you have a lot of scv production shoudl you begin thinking about using SQ to focus your own studies.
Well, of course you could "artificially" manipulate your SQ, by just spending your resources senseless, but just like you can spam APM, nobody really does that in a real game (at least beyond 2minutes-mark).
|
sick post, nice write up and some interesting (though obvious ^_^) results! You should work for IPL to provide end game statistics
|
How awesome would it be to have this implemented into SC2 as sort of a gauge after a game? :p
"You macroed like a Grandmaster this game!" with an arrow pointing somewhere between Idra and EmpireKas.
|
So much information!
Skimmed through it all, mindboggling how you could have had the time and patience to do all this research, but the results sure look interesting. Major props for these amazing graphs 
|
I read all of it and it it is simply amazing. Great Job, I will have to collect all my replays and try to evaluate them this way to see improvement in my macro capacities.
So good
|
My SQ is 67,5 in the last 20 games, and I am only Platinum.
Do you think I can write Blizzard a letter about their obvious mistake?
|
Nice work.
About the SQ:
But i think it's really only an indication for a Terran / Zerg, because Protoss macro with
Gateways work different.
You can't queue up units, or constantly build. You build in cycles, often leading your resources to go high. So your unspent resources are often higher than Terran / Zergs that can effectively macro their shit away with keyboard usage.
|
On September 17 2011 19:54 kickapoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 19:42 Blazinghand wrote:On September 17 2011 19:25 kickapoo wrote:
Awesome posting!
However, I think it would be even greater, someone would be able to derive some potential fields of improvement for their own playstyle.
Therefore I gathered also the data about my opponents and matched their SQ with my own and whether the game resultet in a win or loss.
(I know that having only 20 samples is a very weak point, I would like to discuss it nonetheless.)
Leaque Platinum (nearly all opponents as well)
Win ratio for the samples: 40%
Avg Game length: 21.85 min
My average SQ: 62.26 (+- 7.21)
Opponents avg SQ: 58.20 (+-12.73)
My SQ was higher in 65% of the games than my opponents one
In 60% of the games, whoever had the higher SQ, did win the game
My own conclusion from this data would be, that dispite often having a higher SQ than my opponents I lost 60% of the games. It seems, that I am often not able to make my makro advantage the game winning factor.
Therefore, I guess the conclusion can be that I loose to other factors like decision making, micro, harrassement.
Do you think it is possible to make these kind of conclusions from this kind of data? Or is it too much interpretation with too weak data (too small sample)?
Regards It's a misuse of what SQ is about. SQ represents ability to keep your money low. In theory, you could never make probes and just make pylons every time you hit 100 minerals and have a low SQ... only if you have a lot of scv production shoudl you begin thinking about using SQ to focus your own studies. Well, of course you could "artificially" manipulate your SQ, by just spending your resources senseless, but just like you can spam APM, nobody really does that in a real game (at least beyond 2minutes-mark).
This just isn't true.
You'll often see people thoughtlessly spamming right clicks and production facility hotkeys between and sometimes even during poorly micro'd engagements.
Granted that SQ isn't exactly the kind of thing anybody thinks about artificially inflating during games 
|
On September 17 2011 20:03 Elefanto wrote:
Nice work.
About the SQ:
But i think it's really only an indication for a Terran / Zerg, because Protoss macro with
Gateways work different.
You can't queue up units, or constantly build. You build in cycles, often leading your resources to go high. So your unspent resources are often higher than Terran / Zergs that can effectively macro their shit away with keyboard usage.
OP already said that he also expected that, but it turned out not to be true.
Apart from that, Protoss doesn't build more in cycle than any other race.
If anything I could imagine Zerg to have more unspent ressources due to saving up gas / injecting 4 hatcheries and having massive larva.
On September 17 2011 20:11 kedinik wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2011 19:54 kickapoo wrote:On September 17 2011 19:42 Blazinghand wrote:On September 17 2011 19:25 kickapoo wrote:
Awesome posting!
However, I think it would be even greater, someone would be able to derive some potential fields of improvement for their own playstyle.
Therefore I gathered also the data about my opponents and matched their SQ with my own and whether the game resultet in a win or loss.
(I know that having only 20 samples is a very weak point, I would like to discuss it nonetheless.)
Leaque Platinum (nearly all opponents as well)
Win ratio for the samples: 40%
Avg Game length: 21.85 min
My average SQ: 62.26 (+- 7.21)
Opponents avg SQ: 58.20 (+-12.73)
My SQ was higher in 65% of the games than my opponents one
In 60% of the games, whoever had the higher SQ, did win the game
My own conclusion from this data would be, that dispite often having a higher SQ than my opponents I lost 60% of the games. It seems, that I am often not able to make my makro advantage the game winning factor.
Therefore, I guess the conclusion can be that I loose to other factors like decision making, micro, harrassement.
Do you think it is possible to make these kind of conclusions from this kind of data? Or is it too much interpretation with too weak data (too small sample)?
Regards It's a misuse of what SQ is about. SQ represents ability to keep your money low. In theory, you could never make probes and just make pylons every time you hit 100 minerals and have a low SQ... only if you have a lot of scv production shoudl you begin thinking about using SQ to focus your own studies. Well, of course you could "artificially" manipulate your SQ, by just spending your resources senseless, but just like you can spam APM, nobody really does that in a real game (at least beyond 2minutes-mark). This just isn't true. You'll often see people thoughtlessly spamming right clicks and production facility hotkeys between and sometimes even during poorly micro'd engagements. Granted that SQ isn't exactly the kind of thing anybody thinks about artificially inflating during games
People tab through their production to see when they have to queue new stuff.
|
On September 17 2011 19:25 kickapoo wrote:
Awesome posting!
However, I think it would be even greater, someone would be able to derive some potential fields of improvement for their own playstyle.
Therefore I gathered also the data about my opponents and matched their SQ with my own and whether the game resultet in a win or loss.
(I know that having only 20 samples is a very weak point, I would like to discuss it nonetheless.)
Leaque Platinum (nearly all opponents as well)
Win ratio for the samples: 40%
Avg Game length: 21.85 min
My average SQ: 62.26 (+- 7.21)
Opponents avg SQ: 58.20 (+-12.73)
My SQ was higher in 65% of the games than my opponents one
In 60% of the games, whoever had the higher SQ, did win the game
My own conclusion from this data would be, that dispite often having a higher SQ than my opponents I lost 60% of the games. It seems, that I am often not able to make my makro advantage the game winning factor.
Therefore, I guess the conclusion can be that I loose to other factors like decision making, micro, harrassement.
Do you think it is possible to make these kind of conclusions from this kind of data? Or is it too much interpretation with too weak data (too small sample)?
Regards
I think this is an accurate analysis. The guy who said you are abusing SQ is silly. If you have a high SQ and you are in a low league it definitely points to your strategy being lacking. (i.e. only building pylons)
|
On September 17 2011 20:12 Dyme wrote:People tab through their production to see when they have to queue new stuff.
Yes.
Some people also tab through it for apm inflation when there are other more important things going on.
For instance, they're both good players, but my god, the apm inflation on Merz and Vibe that persists while they're failing to notice drops and new ambushes on their armies...
|
Why did I have to stumble across this at 4:00 in the morning.
There's so much here I want to go over carefully. I'll have to later, but in the meantime I'm going to leave you with a "well done, this is an awesome post!"
|
On September 17 2011 19:31 Shewklad wrote:
Isn't it interesting that in GM toss is the race that produces the lowest ammout of workers? Shouldn't terrans be there, considering they got MULEs?
Average PvP worker count might be 27, TvT might be 60.
|
On September 17 2011 20:03 Elefanto wrote:
Nice work.
About the SQ:
But i think it's really only an indication for a Terran / Zerg, because Protoss macro with
Gateways work different.
You can't queue up units, or constantly build. You build in cycles, often leading your resources to go high. So your unspent resources are often higher than Terran / Zergs that can effectively macro their shit away with keyboard usage.
This is a fantastic point.
Also I think terran is so easy to keep your money low compared with zerg in ZvT/TvZ.. some spots in zvt late game you don't want to actually spend any money because you're waiting for your tech transition so you can easily get thousands of minerals and it's not actually bad play to do so. but it's hard for terran to get thousands of minerals unless they're playing bad.
|
Building in cycles does not lower the average since it is the production rate versus the amount of resources coming in that determines the average. Terran structures also tend to work in grouped cycles, so the resource distribution for them is virtually identical - it is actually more efficient to do it this way, since you keep a single internal clock and a mental count.
The macro of Protoss and Terran is actually completely identical - it just feels different. Protoss will wait for full warp ins, but not just for a sudden burst of units. It's because it is most time efficient. A terran will similarly macro in the same way, again because it is time efficient.
Peaks and troughs in a profile will be represented by the different buildings having different timings. So yes, if you've got a high unspent average, you can work on your macro. Don't excuse yourself just because you're Protoss. Your average unspent is as significant as it is for Terran, due to time averaging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
