|
On May 22 2013 12:20 aksfjh wrote:
A lot of people in here who pretend to understand stats but don't, and drawing nonsense (and common sense) conclusions from the data.
Bottom line, this stuff is interesting because it shows a common community perception, that injects separate the men from the boys, is largely imagined.
It's not imagined, the stat is just too hard to calculate accurately. If a masters player and a silver player were both on 3 bases with one queen per base devoted only to injects, the energy on the masters player's queens would be far lower at the 10 - 15 min mark than the energy on the silver player's queens.
|
Yeah...Creep tumors and macro hatcheries in higher level play makes this study flawed.
|
On May 22 2013 14:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 12:20 aksfjh wrote:
A lot of people in here who pretend to understand stats but don't, and drawing nonsense (and common sense) conclusions from the data.
Bottom line, this stuff is interesting because it shows a common community perception, that injects separate the men from the boys, is largely imagined. It's not imagined, the stat is just too hard to calculate accurately. If a masters player and a silver player were both on 3 bases with one queen per base devoted only to injects, the energy on the masters player's queens would be far lower at the 10 - 15 min mark than the energy on the silver player's queens.
I recently helped a masters Zerg in the Zerg Help Me thread (or it might've been an independent thread actually, but I digress) who consistently had all queens 75%-full energy from about the 12 minute mark onward (to the end of the game at approximately 28 minutes) in an overall relatively passive macro game, so no that's not always true. If you're going to make blatant statements then you'll need some data to back that up.
|
On May 22 2013 14:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 14:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:On May 22 2013 12:20 aksfjh wrote:
A lot of people in here who pretend to understand stats but don't, and drawing nonsense (and common sense) conclusions from the data.
Bottom line, this stuff is interesting because it shows a common community perception, that injects separate the men from the boys, is largely imagined. It's not imagined, the stat is just too hard to calculate accurately. If a masters player and a silver player were both on 3 bases with one queen per base devoted only to injects, the energy on the masters player's queens would be far lower at the 10 - 15 min mark than the energy on the silver player's queens. I recently helped a masters Zerg in the Zerg Help Me thread (or it might've been an independent thread actually, but I digress) who consistently had all queens 75%-full energy from about the 12 minute mark onward (to the end of the game at approximately 28 minutes) in an overall relatively passive macro game, so no that's not always true. If you're going to make blatant statements then you'll need some data to back that up.
On the other side, I'm around platinum when I off-race as Zerg to fool around, but for some reason I'm totally obsessed with injects and actually have pretty low energy over long games. I'm just awful at everything else.
|
On May 22 2013 14:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 14:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:On May 22 2013 12:20 aksfjh wrote:
A lot of people in here who pretend to understand stats but don't, and drawing nonsense (and common sense) conclusions from the data.
Bottom line, this stuff is interesting because it shows a common community perception, that injects separate the men from the boys, is largely imagined. It's not imagined, the stat is just too hard to calculate accurately. If a masters player and a silver player were both on 3 bases with one queen per base devoted only to injects, the energy on the masters player's queens would be far lower at the 10 - 15 min mark than the energy on the silver player's queens. I recently helped a masters Zerg in the Zerg Help Me thread (or it might've been an independent thread actually, but I digress) who consistently had all queens 75%-full energy from about the 12 minute mark onward (to the end of the game at approximately 28 minutes) in an overall relatively passive macro game, so no that's not always true. If you're going to make blatant statements then you'll need some data to back that up.
"It's not true for this one guy so this is not a good rule of thumb!"
You are not even proving the previous poster wrong, you are just saying that this guy's queen energy was high, not that it was higher than the queen energy from a silver player. Are you disagreeing that the average master player's queens would have lower energy than the silver player's queens?
Of course it will not be true all the time, but that was not previous guy's point.
|
I personally would like to see separate stats for both high masters and gm. It's hard to take the masters stat seriously when it's lumped up with the low ones.
|
On May 22 2013 14:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 14:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:On May 22 2013 12:20 aksfjh wrote:
A lot of people in here who pretend to understand stats but don't, and drawing nonsense (and common sense) conclusions from the data.
Bottom line, this stuff is interesting because it shows a common community perception, that injects separate the men from the boys, is largely imagined. It's not imagined, the stat is just too hard to calculate accurately. If a masters player and a silver player were both on 3 bases with one queen per base devoted only to injects, the energy on the masters player's queens would be far lower at the 10 - 15 min mark than the energy on the silver player's queens. I recently helped a masters Zerg in the Zerg Help Me thread (or it might've been an independent thread actually, but I digress) who consistently had all queens 75%-full energy from about the 12 minute mark onward (to the end of the game at approximately 28 minutes) in an overall relatively passive macro game, so no that's not always true. If you're going to make blatant statements then you'll need some data to back that up.
Yes you're right, I shouldn't have made the statement the way I did. I should have said, in general the energy on the masters player's queens would be far lower at the 10 - 15 min mark than the energy on the silver player's queens given the same types of situations. Additionally, masters is a very diverse league, so I should have said high masters to GM. I post without thinking some times ><
|
On May 22 2013 14:52 Thrax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 14:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 22 2013 14:33 knOxStarcraft wrote:On May 22 2013 12:20 aksfjh wrote:
A lot of people in here who pretend to understand stats but don't, and drawing nonsense (and common sense) conclusions from the data.
Bottom line, this stuff is interesting because it shows a common community perception, that injects separate the men from the boys, is largely imagined. It's not imagined, the stat is just too hard to calculate accurately. If a masters player and a silver player were both on 3 bases with one queen per base devoted only to injects, the energy on the masters player's queens would be far lower at the 10 - 15 min mark than the energy on the silver player's queens. I recently helped a masters Zerg in the Zerg Help Me thread (or it might've been an independent thread actually, but I digress) who consistently had all queens 75%-full energy from about the 12 minute mark onward (to the end of the game at approximately 28 minutes) in an overall relatively passive macro game, so no that's not always true. If you're going to make blatant statements then you'll need some data to back that up. "It's not true for this one guy so this is not a good rule of thumb!"
The previous guy was stating, simply put, that "X is always true", so in order to show him that his blanket statement was incorrect I simply pointed out a real-world situation where X wasn't true. Burden of proof is on him.
|
|
|
On May 22 2013 03:54 Embir wrote:
Finally solid confirmation that Zergs macro is the easiest - we already knew they had it easy with only one production building and easiest tech switches in the game, now we know that they macro mechanic is also forgiving - and note that supposed unforgiveness of zerg mechanics was main argument for zerg's macro difficulty.
Really? You have managed to make this a balance whine? *sigh*... Personally play random, and think zerg has the most unforgiving macro mechanics.
On topic, great read OP. Thanks for looking into this, was a surprising read initially but when I thought about it it kind of made sense. Since you're attacking, harassing, scouting etc more often in higher leagues you will be less focused on your inject APM. Also, macro hatches for 350 mins are thoroughly worth the reduced necessity to have perfect injects and thus freeing up APM for more important tasks. Still, enjoyed the post, thanks!
|
On May 22 2013 14:27 knOxStarcraft wrote:
In the later stages of the game, good players will generally be on many bases with macro hatches, but won't have queens at them all because of the supply sink of the queens. This is probably the biggest reason why inject percentage is the way it is for higher level players. It has nothing to do with zerg macro being easy, as stated more than once in this thread. So please, before you try to bash zerg players just because you're angry, think of a better response than "SEE, zerg macro EZ durrrr".
I dunno if you know this, but this is particularly relevant with the hatcheries without queens thing. If a hatch isnt injected more than once, it is excluded from the inject rate.
I seriously wish we could see an analysis of a high end player, rather than one replay from a single player (idra). I imagine that Life would have insanely high inject rates for example.
|
In order to draw any real conclusions about anything else than the fact that inject uptime decrease in longer games regardless of league, I think there are a number of extra variables to look closer at.
For example: In a 20 minute game, master players are sitting just below 60% uptime on injects. Here it would be interesting to know how the inject uptime looked in the first 10 and 15 minutes of those games to shed some light on if there are any specific timings in the game where people "stop" injecting.
Queen energy has also been mentioned before but it would still be pretty hard to draw any significant conclusions from that alone. You would probably have to include some way of telling if there is a queen present on the map able to inject as well to account for the "actual" possible uptime.
I also think its wrong to not compare inject rates to games lost and won.
Since the ladder system is in effect, players would gradually migrate to the spot on the ladder corresponding to the rank of their skills, with the noise causing random fluctuations in ladder/MMR rank.
When two people play against each other on the ladder, they have approximately equal MMR. Since they are meeting on ladder and have approximately equal MMR, the expected win% is 50% for each. If one of them has better inject skill (or in general, better race macro), then, since they have approximately equal MMR, the other player must have superiority in other skills to compensate. Therefore we would not see any correlation between win% and inject%, even though in this model inject% is important.
While there shouldnt be any correlation between win% and inject uptime (as more or less everyone should be at 50%), there could still be a difference between games won and games lost when it comes to injects.
You might for example find that when winning matches, you have a higher percentage of inject uptime compared to when you lose.
One could then speculate that when facing easier opponents you are generally more comfortable with your play as a whole, and injects are easier to hit, resulting in a better game. Likewise, if the games lost show a lower percentage of inject uptime, one could further speculate that denying people the chance to inject is a good way of winning a game.
If games lost and games won display a fairly similar inject uptime it would be easier to claim that, while of course still important, injecting is perhaps not more important than any other skill.
Edit: I was also unable to determine if you rebalance the graphs to account for the fact that 90% is max. As an example, 66% out of 100 is still 66 but if you account for the fact that 90 is max, you actually end up at roughly 73.3%. 60% out 90 is on the other hand roughly 66.7. So instead of having a difference of 6 percentage units we're now sitting at a difference of 6.6 percentage units. An increase of the 10% we left out of the equation when using 100% as max instead of 90%.
Ofc when using more than one queen per hatchery it would then be possible to reach over 100% but I dont really think anyone is doing that. If you rescale the numbers putting 90% as the maximum uptime instead of 100%, the difference between the leagues increases.
|
On May 22 2013 03:54 Embir wrote:
Finally solid confirmation that Zergs macro is the easiest - we already knew they had it easy with only one production building and easiest tech switches in the game, now we know that they macro mechanic is also forgiving - and note that supposed unforgiveness of zerg mechanics was main argument for zerg's macro difficulty.
Your a bitch ?
Larva injects , spread creep , drones , units , upgrades , scouting , composition (massive for Zerg more than other races I think).
Getting it all right aint simple ....every race has different aspects , take your crying elsewhere ....
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 22 2013 03:59 FawxzTV wrote:
This mostly just shows that higher level players expand more aswell as adding macro hatches. Resulting in more bases than queens -> lower numbers. Injects are still INCREDIBLY important in the first couple of minutes.
Pretty much this, if a silver league player only has 2 queens and 2 hatches it's no wonder that his hatches are equally as often injected as a master league player's. Also high level players choose when to inject or when not to and instead make a creep tumor etc. That injects become less important in the late game is no secret, that's why high level players more and more often use most of their queens to transfuse in the late game.
|
On May 22 2013 12:20 aksfjh wrote:
A lot of people in here who pretend to understand stats but don't, and drawing nonsense (and common sense) conclusions from the data.
Bottom line, this stuff is interesting because it shows a common community perception, that injects separate the men from the boys, is largely imagined.
No on the contrary
It does not show that at all though i agree it is interesting none the less.
It would be alot more interesting though if the study was done more carefully and if it took into account logical explanations wich skew the stats from the start (like pros using 2nd queen to make tumor first, and having more hatcheries and queens in general)
|
To be honest the more hatches you have the less injects are important; In low masters some zerg players are terrible at injects, but it's okay as long as they injected well enough during the drone phase, and then made macro hatches or higher tech units. You only need really good injects when playing mass ling/banes and trading a lot. Otherwise you'll stockpile larvae anyway, and you'll be able to remax regardless of your injects.
|
I think there are far too many differences between the two leagues to really state without a doubt that inject skill doesn't make the difference between silver and masters players. One cannot say simply that inject skill doesnt make the difference between a good and bad zerg because your data correlates. Correlation does not equal causation.
Like most people have said, the difference in expansion behavior of masters players versus silver players is huge in this study. If a silver zerg has two bases and injects always on both bases he will have a 100% inject rate. If a masters zerg has 4 bases and injects on 3 he will have a 75% inject rate. Which one in this case is better? Obviously, the masters zerg has a higher inject skill even though his percentage is lower. If you also realize that the majority of silver games are played on two bases this data becomes exceedingly irrelevant.
I like your data but I'm afraid the premise of counting inject percentage is fundamentally flawed if you analyze nothing more. If you had perhaps a more similar data set in which the silver is on 4 bases and the masters is as well then the results would be far more conclusive. If the percentages in this scenario were similar then your conclusion would be a valid one. As is, I'm afraid that the data is inconclusive. A more thorough analysis is required.
|
On May 22 2013 19:15 Huckle wrote:
Like most people have said, the difference in expansion behavior of masters players versus silver players is huge in this study. If a silver zerg has two bases and injects always on both bases he will have a 100% inject rate. If a masters zerg has 4 bases and injects on 3 he will have a 75% inject rate. Which one in this case is better? Obviously, the masters zerg has a higher inject skill even though his percentage is lower. If you also realize that the majority of silver games are played on two bases this data becomes exceedingly irrelevant.
Hatcheries that are not getting injected or only receive one inject are not taken into account, so its actually not that simple.
Still there are a few things which would require some clarification and/or further investigation before one can draw any real conclusions.
|
On May 22 2013 19:19 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 19:15 Huckle wrote:
Like most people have said, the difference in expansion behavior of masters players versus silver players is huge in this study. If a silver zerg has two bases and injects always on both bases he will have a 100% inject rate. If a masters zerg has 4 bases and injects on 3 he will have a 75% inject rate. Which one in this case is better? Obviously, the masters zerg has a higher inject skill even though his percentage is lower. If you also realize that the majority of silver games are played on two bases this data becomes exceedingly irrelevant. Hatcheries that are not getting injected or only receive one inject are not taken into account, so its actually not that simple. Still there are a few things which would require some clarification.
it is that simple. More hatcheries, less accuracy and yet more larva.
|
Amount of queen energy used would be a much better indicator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
