EPTDo you macro like a pro? - Page 58
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ArkSC
128 Posts
| ||
|
Mafs
Canada458 Posts
On February 08 2012 13:49 MaverickSC wrote: Is this accurate? I keep getting an SQ of 95 but I doubt my macro is near as well as Idra's. I float 1k during big fights too EDIT: I'm 1k master Your Terran right? Mules make your SQ inflated by a bit. Everyone floats 1k during big fights and once your maxed it makes it lower. | ||
|
ohampatu
United States1448 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
| ||
|
UmbraaeternuS
Chile476 Posts
| ||
|
Proof.
535 Posts
On November 02 2011 10:14 Dhalphir wrote: I suppose, I really shouldn't be too angry at you for developing this. Its a useful tool in the right context. My concern is just that its being promoted (and used) as a catchall by shitty players looking to find excuses to claim they aren't shitty. I just want people to say "yes, I am in Gold. I am a Gold level player, I am not convinced that I'm a Diamond level player in disguise, I'm just plain Gold level and I suck, and I want to get better. There is no such thing as "I play at a Diamond level but I'm stuck in Silver because I get cheesed a lot". Nope, you're just plain ol' Silver. And this SQ number gives them another number to hide behind like the idiots they are. And it makes me angry. This is exactly what I was thinking as I read some of the responses in this thread. Although, it's nothing to get angry over if it gives people the feeling that they are getting better (as opposed to giving people the feeling that they ARE better than they think, which is what you were ticked off about). | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On February 13 2012 01:12 Proof. wrote: This is exactly what I was thinking as I read some of the responses in this thread. Although, it's nothing to get angry over if it gives people the feeling that they are getting better (as opposed to giving people the feeling that they ARE better than they think, which is what you were ticked off about). I think people use this (or at least they should) use this as a way to measure how good they are at macro. At least I do. In SC2, macro is important, but you can't rely on macro alone to win games. Macro is only one aspect of the game. Having good game knowledge, multitasking, micro and all of that is just as important as macro (arguably micro and multitasking is more important at higher levels). So a silver player with good macro is probably in silver because he's incompetent at reading his opponent and always reacts poorly. A silver player might also get a higher score than a Plat player because he has no multitasking or micro to do. People should use this as a way to measure how good one aspect of their game is, that aspect being macro. People shouldn't use this as a way to measure skill as the measurement is quite incomplete. But the measurement seems pretty good for determining how good someone is at managing econ. | ||
|
Zzzapper
1797 Posts
| ||
|
Hickorynut
United States31 Posts
| ||
|
Havik_
United States5585 Posts
| ||
|
B34ST
United Kingdom150 Posts
| ||
|
Gulzt
Netherlands275 Posts
According to my scores for the last 63 games (>600 income) I don't fit your table. My average is 49. That would place me between Silver and Gold. I'm in Platinum though. How do I interpret this? Would it mean my macro sucks hard below my league average, but I'm above average on my decision making? | ||
|
sayu
Germany5 Posts
On February 12 2012 03:43 Overlord17 wrote: Way to much math really takes the meaning out of this. all you have to do is copy the equation to wolframalpha and put in the numbers for I and U respectively. copy paste each result in a notepad. when you have as many as you want, copy them again into wolframalpha, seperating them by "+"-sings. copy paste the result of that into wolframalpha again, put a "/" after it, count the numbers of results from the equation you collected and put it after the "/". you have to do NO math at all yourself(counting a couple numbers isn't math, right?). | ||
|
Gulzt
Netherlands275 Posts
Could it be that in the last 6 months since this article the level of play has changed? I've been in Diamond in the first two seasons. Now I"m not even top-platinum (jumped back in last week of season 5). My SQ in my diamond days seems also around 50 | ||
|
M1cha84
Germany64 Posts
 | ||
|
tapk69
Portugal264 Posts
Particularly like the GM league level and the EG.Idra level .. Its like the final boss.. | ||
|
Pwere
Canada1557 Posts
On March 06 2012 01:58 Gulzt wrote: This implies that your macro is what's holding you back, but you make up for it with a combination of scouting, game sense and/or micro.K, I traced 120 games now, I'm pretty much around 50 SQ, yet in Platinum. Your stats show my Macro fits between silver & gold. Could it be that in the last 6 months since this article the level of play has changed? I've been in Diamond in the first two seasons. Now I"m not even top-platinum (jumped back in last week of season 5). My SQ in my diamond days seems also around 50 Those who have SQs above their leagues should probably look into those other things to improve. Imho, SQ is only useful if you play an adaptative macro game. If you tend to go for 2 base timings or strong 3base pushes without deviating much, obviously your SQ will look good, but that's because adapting your macro to the situation is simply harder than following a recipe. | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
| ||
|
insearchof
United States57 Posts
| ||
|
Brandish
United States339 Posts
| ||
| ||
