|
|
|
wow i did the calculation on some of my recent games and they are between 90-101
i even double checked the math with the link SQ calculator
i guess my micro or decision making is holding me back lol
|
So what is missing if we have good SQ?
|
On January 10 2012 16:06 Kfcnoob wrote:
wow i did the calculation on some of my recent games and they are between 90-101
i even double checked the math with the link SQ calculator
i guess my micro or decision making is holding me back lol
What rank are you?
|
Just calculated my SQ for the last ten games >600 income.
AvgSQ: 71.9
League: Bronze :D
|
I would be interested in seeing how the average SQ at various levels has changed since the initial calculation.
|
Holy "#%! really nice too read. Good job.
|
On January 22 2012 03:37 iControlYou wrote:
So what is missing if we have good SQ?
decision making, scouting, army composition, micro, positioning, engagements, etc
you can spend your money making mass CC and only SCVs with a good SQ, you'll never win vs someone at an equivalent level
|
On December 22 2011 18:51 GoldenH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 05:44 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Anyone saying that their macro is as good as a pro, check your worker production. If it's not perfect, than obviously your income will be lower, which means that your spending will be lower  So I played quite a few games today (as i'm sick) so, I'm off my game, but apparently, I still macro like a pro.
Your average: 75. Which was slightly better than the average masters level 6 months ago. Not professionals. Not high masters. GM players 6 months ago, were significantly better (at 80some in average).
It would be natural for me to conclude that players - in general - have become somewhat better in the meantime, and that if you played like you do now 6 months ago, you would have been in masters, but right now you are in ... top diamond to mid or low masters? because that's where the skill is now.
It would be interesting if someone with too much time at their hands redid the original work to see where the average player was right now for each league - and then for the top 20 GM in Korea. But I feel bad for suggesting it because I know I wouldn't have it in me to do that.
edit: Top 3 on GM on EU now are T Z P - Happy, Nerchio and Titan. Average last 10 games for SQ are 88, 89 and 86 - but Titan had two games in there where he was low 70s, and if I ignore those, his average is 89.
So ... top GM, not tournament setting, on EU, is around 88 - 90 it seems when they are just playing normally. So I am thinking, 85+ is probably what you should average at the very least in order to claim to 'macro like a pro'. 90+ and you have a solid case  Note that from the numbers I got, all the pro's had games > 100 SQ in their last 10, so that's probably closer to their actual limit.
|
In my heart...i have over 9000....in reality there are 2 extra zeros that shouldn't be there.
|
excellent read! I'm glad someone bumped this, otherwise I wouldn't have read it!
|
I noticed that the entire diamond league improved their sq to around master-gm level 6 months ago. I wonder if I could win vs. IdrA ~1 year ago. hmmm
|
Nice post, lots of effort. That said, SQ unfortunately just isn't taking enough into account to be useful, which is why the curves look so weird, you have bronze games intersecting GM games, which is ridiculous since there's no way any bronze player would ever have even close to comparable macro to a GM player. Staying on too few workers actually improve SQ, while it is fatal doom to real macro, so one of the most basic aspects are missing.
It's sad because it would be really cool with an actual quantifiable way to rate your macro in a game.
|
On January 31 2012 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:
Nice post, lots of effort. That said, SQ unfortunately just isn't taking enough into account to be useful, which is why the curves look so weird, you have bronze games intersecting GM games, which is ridiculous since there's no way any bronze player would ever have even close to comparable macro to a GM player. Staying on too few workers actually improve SQ, while it is fatal doom to real macro, so one of the most basic aspects are missing.
It's sad because it would be really cool with an actual quantifiable way to rate your macro in a game.
There is. You simply calculate your SQ and then check your workers made compared to game length to combine the two calculations.
|
On January 31 2012 00:44 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:
Nice post, lots of effort. That said, SQ unfortunately just isn't taking enough into account to be useful, which is why the curves look so weird, you have bronze games intersecting GM games, which is ridiculous since there's no way any bronze player would ever have even close to comparable macro to a GM player. Staying on too few workers actually improve SQ, while it is fatal doom to real macro, so one of the most basic aspects are missing.
It's sad because it would be really cool with an actual quantifiable way to rate your macro in a game. There is. You simply calculate your SQ and then check your workers made compared to game length to combine the two calculations.
I don't really get how that is done though. Just completed a game against green tea ai, got 1,937 in Resource Collection Rate (which I assume is what is meant by average income) and 1,344 in average unspent. I don't get what 10^2 and 10^3 etc means on the charts in the OP. Anyways, I guess that in itself gives a pretty decent SQ of around 80 or so? Workers created was 98 and the game was 21 minutes long.
How do I tell if this is good? It felt like I was playing badly, but at the same time I feel like the numbers show a decent SQ. I never got supply blocked, but I didn't inject even close to as well as I usually do, it was definitely not diamond level macro.
|
|
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On January 31 2012 02:22 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 00:44 Dalavita wrote:On January 31 2012 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:
Nice post, lots of effort. That said, SQ unfortunately just isn't taking enough into account to be useful, which is why the curves look so weird, you have bronze games intersecting GM games, which is ridiculous since there's no way any bronze player would ever have even close to comparable macro to a GM player. Staying on too few workers actually improve SQ, while it is fatal doom to real macro, so one of the most basic aspects are missing.
It's sad because it would be really cool with an actual quantifiable way to rate your macro in a game. There is. You simply calculate your SQ and then check your workers made compared to game length to combine the two calculations. I don't really get how that is done though. Just completed a game against green tea ai, got 1,937 in Resource Collection Rate (which I assume is what is meant by average income) and 1,344 in average unspent. I don't get what 10^2 and 10^3 etc means on the charts in the OP. Anyways, I guess that in itself gives a pretty decent SQ of around 80 or so? Workers created was 98 and the game was 21 minutes long. How do I tell if this is good? It felt like I was playing badly, but at the same time I feel like the numbers show a decent SQ. I never got supply blocked, but I didn't inject even close to as well as I usually do, it was definitely not diamond level macro.
I think you overestimate how good diamond-level macro is.
|
On January 31 2012 02:38 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 02:22 Tobberoth wrote:On January 31 2012 00:44 Dalavita wrote:On January 31 2012 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:
Nice post, lots of effort. That said, SQ unfortunately just isn't taking enough into account to be useful, which is why the curves look so weird, you have bronze games intersecting GM games, which is ridiculous since there's no way any bronze player would ever have even close to comparable macro to a GM player. Staying on too few workers actually improve SQ, while it is fatal doom to real macro, so one of the most basic aspects are missing.
It's sad because it would be really cool with an actual quantifiable way to rate your macro in a game. There is. You simply calculate your SQ and then check your workers made compared to game length to combine the two calculations. I don't really get how that is done though. Just completed a game against green tea ai, got 1,937 in Resource Collection Rate (which I assume is what is meant by average income) and 1,344 in average unspent. I don't get what 10^2 and 10^3 etc means on the charts in the OP. Anyways, I guess that in itself gives a pretty decent SQ of around 80 or so? Workers created was 98 and the game was 21 minutes long. How do I tell if this is good? It felt like I was playing badly, but at the same time I feel like the numbers show a decent SQ. I never got supply blocked, but I didn't inject even close to as well as I usually do, it was definitely not diamond level macro. I think you overestimate how good diamond-level macro is.
I'm in plat, so.. yeah.
|
On January 31 2012 02:22 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 00:44 Dalavita wrote:On January 31 2012 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:
Nice post, lots of effort. That said, SQ unfortunately just isn't taking enough into account to be useful, which is why the curves look so weird, you have bronze games intersecting GM games, which is ridiculous since there's no way any bronze player would ever have even close to comparable macro to a GM player. Staying on too few workers actually improve SQ, while it is fatal doom to real macro, so one of the most basic aspects are missing.
It's sad because it would be really cool with an actual quantifiable way to rate your macro in a game. There is. You simply calculate your SQ and then check your workers made compared to game length to combine the two calculations. I don't really get how that is done though. Just completed a game against green tea ai, got 1,937 in Resource Collection Rate (which I assume is what is meant by average income) and 1,344 in average unspent. I don't get what 10^2 and 10^3 etc means on the charts in the OP. Anyways, I guess that in itself gives a pretty decent SQ of around 80 or so? Workers created was 98 and the game was 21 minutes long. How do I tell if this is good? It felt like I was playing badly, but at the same time I feel like the numbers show a decent SQ. I never got supply blocked, but I didn't inject even close to as well as I usually do, it was definitely not diamond level macro.
10^2 = 10 x 10 = 100
10^3 = 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000
I would assume.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On January 31 2012 02:39 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 02:38 marvellosity wrote:On January 31 2012 02:22 Tobberoth wrote:On January 31 2012 00:44 Dalavita wrote:On January 31 2012 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:
Nice post, lots of effort. That said, SQ unfortunately just isn't taking enough into account to be useful, which is why the curves look so weird, you have bronze games intersecting GM games, which is ridiculous since there's no way any bronze player would ever have even close to comparable macro to a GM player. Staying on too few workers actually improve SQ, while it is fatal doom to real macro, so one of the most basic aspects are missing.
It's sad because it would be really cool with an actual quantifiable way to rate your macro in a game. There is. You simply calculate your SQ and then check your workers made compared to game length to combine the two calculations. I don't really get how that is done though. Just completed a game against green tea ai, got 1,937 in Resource Collection Rate (which I assume is what is meant by average income) and 1,344 in average unspent. I don't get what 10^2 and 10^3 etc means on the charts in the OP. Anyways, I guess that in itself gives a pretty decent SQ of around 80 or so? Workers created was 98 and the game was 21 minutes long. How do I tell if this is good? It felt like I was playing badly, but at the same time I feel like the numbers show a decent SQ. I never got supply blocked, but I didn't inject even close to as well as I usually do, it was definitely not diamond level macro. I think you overestimate how good diamond-level macro is. I'm in plat, so.. yeah.
And yes, 80.75, and looking at the OP you made a lot of workers. If you did that consistently on the ladder and you aren't winning most of your games, you have some fundamental flaws that aren't your macro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://hammerand.com/goldenh/probers.png)
![[image loading]](http://hammerand.com/goldenh/spending.png)
![[image loading]](http://hammerand.com/goldenh/sq.png)
![[image loading]](http://hammerand.com/goldenh/sc2ranks.png)
