Do you macro like a pro? - Page 36

On September 17 2011 09:19 DiaBoLuS wrote:


or your math is wrong

On September 17 2011 09:29 rauk wrote:


3 is an incredibly small sample size. i can also get a 90+ SQ if i cherry pick games, that's why you need to use at least 10+ games.

On September 17 2011 09:38 tshred wrote:



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.

On September 18 2011 02:14 ScrubS wrote:


The math wasn't wrong, besides, that isn't relevant to my question..




The sample size doesn't matter, it isn't of any importance to my question. Besides, i didnt cherry pick, when i calced it of 10 random games, my SQ was still 92...




Okay thank you <3 at least somebody who doesn't focus on my SQ number

On September 18 2011 01:09 Reithan wrote:
A couple things:

1. People keep refering to this:
+ Show Spoiler +
as a 'graph'. That's accurate partly, but it's a histogram.

It DOESN'T show anything about a moving avg per number of games, or anything else mentioned. It shows how many games had a given rating for a given league.

If you look at the X axis (SQ) across to around 35-ish, then look up to the Bronze line, you'll see it peaks at around 45. This means he found 45 games where a Bronze player scored 35. The fact that the bronze line shows 10 Games at around 70 SQ only means that he ALSO found 10 games where a Bronze had a 70 SQ.

The Histogram isn't an average, or a moving average, or anything. It's basically just a list, in image form of "I had X games with Y rating for Z League."

So, it shows you how strongly the rating correlates. As you can see the peaks for each league aren't super crazy steep with gaps between their bases, there IS some overlap. So it's possible for a league to score outside their expected SQ range, however, the tops of the peaks ARE significantly higher than the widest portion of their base, and in most cases the peaks are fairly far apart, showing that the results are indicative of something...though Bronze has a second peak that coincides with Silver...

What you CAN attribute the smaller number of games where the person's SQ was higher or lower than avg are many things, such as someone's who smurfing, someone who has lowered their rating on purpose, someone's practiced a lot and is about to league up, someone on a killer win streak, a zerg that is just overdroning and facerolling the keyboard, etc.

Probably the secondary peak on Bronze is due to smurfs, achievement hunters and people leaguing up.

On September 18 2011 03:07 GHOSTCLAW wrote:


40+ games to analyze your games if you have a really really weird outlier.

Just to somewhat answer your question a little better, it's mostly another indicator that you can judge your play by - looks like you should look at cost efficiency (actually it would be nice if there was a good way to judge that), as well as timings and stuff. This number looks like APM - another way to measure your skill, but not as good as say...ladder rank/sc2ranks/win/loss record.