EPTDo you macro like a pro? - Page 54
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
| ||
|
Aando
1304 Posts
| ||
|
Troxle
United States486 Posts
| ||
|
hysterial
United States2044 Posts
On December 18 2011 09:57 Aando wrote: Been playing some terran in customs and my avg. SQ has been 79.65 last 10 games compared to my main race (gold Z) at 60~. One maybe should try a race switch for the next ladder season... Terran SQ is fairly unclear at lower leagues, because you have the ability to queue multiple units. | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
 | ||
|
Tobias
Sweden187 Posts
| ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Yes i do its my unit control that is terrible.Playing terran and i can get maxed in 15 minutes, terran macro is the hardest by far btw (qq) Interesting thread btw but i dont think you should look at workers alone, maybe totall suply is a better indicator though both depend on how the actual game develops. Resources unspend is a good indicator but its also related to worker count, with low worker count and low income, its more easy to spend all resources | ||
|
MtlGuitarist97
United States1539 Posts
Every 10 seconds you're supply blocked subtract 1 point. Every 10 seconds you forget to build workers subtract 1 point. Just do that and you'll find out how good at macro you really are. The best I've ever done is like a legit 90 when I subtract the points. | ||
|
Louis8k8
Canada285 Posts
| ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On December 18 2011 22:42 MtlGuitarist97 wrote: Imo I devised an easier way to figure out how close your macro really is to what they say. Every 10 seconds you're supply blocked subtract 1 point. Every 10 seconds you forget to build workers subtract 1 point. Just do that and you'll find out how good at macro you really are. The best I've ever done is like a legit 90 when I subtract the points. Would you subtract fractions of a point if you're only supply blocked for 2 seconds? Or only count if the block exceeds 10? | ||
|
Eichhorn
Germany7 Posts
 | ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
On December 19 2011 00:23 Eichhorn wrote: I'm playing Terran, my last 15 ladder games had an average SQ of 83, in Yabot I'm normally around 120-125 ( not that it matters ). It's been some time since I last played, but back then I was stuck at 50/50 in Silver League, guess I have some terrible decision making/micro/scouting. Yabot is great for refining build orders or very specific areas in your play, but not your macro in a "real game" type scenario The Joker explains it the best  "You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds! " You will honestly improve your macro much faster by just hammering out ladder games | ||
|
NexCa
Germany954 Posts
On December 18 2011 22:24 Rassy wrote: Do you macro like a pro? Yes i do its my unit control that is terrible.Playing terran and i can get maxed in 15 minutes, terran macro is the hardest by far btw (qq) Interesting thread btw but i dont think you should look at workers alone, maybe totall suply is a better indicator though both depend on how the actual game develops. Resources unspend is a good indicator but its also related to worker count, with low worker count and low income, its more easy to spend all resources rofl, Terran is hard to macro ? Tell me more jokes please ! :D | ||
|
coL.hendralisk
Zimbabwe1756 Posts
On October 30 2011 16:10 StreetWise wrote: If that APM is EAPM, then I would say actually pretty even. In SQ terms, 50 means you are floating what you are making, i.e. if your income is 1000 minerals, you are floating 1000 etc. If you have an income of 1000 and only float 500 minerals, then that gives you an SQ of around 70. Only using a small sampling of me and 3 friends, I am masters and the 3 friends are all battling it out in silver league, I average 76 EAPM, and 72 SQ. While my friends are in the 50s for both, so at least in my small group, there seems to be a strong parallel. My eapm is double my SQ | ||
|
Twistacles
Canada1327 Posts
| ||
|
eteran
Germany83 Posts
Is replay parsing not advanced enough to reconstruct the game in an external parser? Otherwise calculating the SQ should be possible by "just" reconstructing the game. | ||
|
Eichhorn
Germany7 Posts
On December 19 2011 01:22 Dommk wrote: You will honestly improve your macro much faster by just hammering out ladder games Well, I've already stated that I know that Yabot doesn't matter that much. Still, even though I lose nearly 50% of my games, I maintain a SQ of about 85 in silver ladder games...my macro already seems to be quite good, so other factors have to be the reason I lose. ( already had some speculations there @ decision-making/micro/scouting ) | ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
On December 19 2011 14:16 Eichhorn wrote: Well, I've already stated that I know that Yabot doesn't matter that much. Still, even though I lose nearly 50% of my games, I maintain a SQ of about 85 in silver ladder games...my macro already seems to be quite good, so other factors have to be the reason I lose. ( already had some speculations there @ decision-making/micro/scouting ) I think there must be some selection bias in there. If you can macro as well as a grandmaster player then I see no reason why you should be going 50/50 in Silver League, even due to decision making. Most likely you are just looking at games that are very short or tend to queue up a lot of units | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On December 19 2011 14:20 Dommk wrote: I think there must be some selection bias in there. If you can macro as well as a grandmaster player then I see no reason why you should be going 50/50 in Silver League, even due to decision making. Most likely you are just looking at games that are very short or tend to queue up a lot of units Alternatively, he's not expanding enough, or making too many unit-producing structures. | ||
| ||
