EPTNever Miss An Inject? What the Data Say - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
vesicular
United States1310 Posts
| ||
|
SweKenZo
Sweden82 Posts
 | ||
|
dsjoerg
United States384 Posts
On May 26 2013 10:29 iKill wrote: you can never get 100% perfect inject uptime because your first hatch always takes 50sec of not being injected while your queen is on the way + 60sec for the pool, at least. There should be a multiple-choice test before you are allowed to comment, in order to verify that you actually read the article. This is my friendly way of telling you that the issue you raised is not an issue, because of how Inject % is measured. | ||
|
DavoS
United States4605 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On May 26 2013 14:34 vesicular wrote: I find it funny that people are talking about GM vs Silver as if that's the main point of the article. It's not. It's simply an example to prove a finer point, that being that the common notion that you always must hit your inject timings is flawed. All they're doing is displaying stats to show injects become less important as the game wears on. They're not something you need to constantly keep on top of like supply caps. Reading any more into it is rather silly. The stats don't say anything about injects becoming less important, it simply shows that people don´t hit as many injects later in the game. | ||
|
_SpiRaL_
Afghanistan1636 Posts
On May 22 2013 08:09 Hypemeup wrote: It actually makes a huge difference, I dont know what you are going on about. Open up a pro zerg replay in SC2 gears. You will find yourself surprised at what a small difference it makes. | ||
|
Piousflea
United States259 Posts
How many Zerg build orders do you see where a Hatchery is intentionally left queenless for some time, or when a Queens first 25 energy goes to a Creep tumor? Larva are super important only when you are playing a strat that requires a lot of larva. Lingbanemuta and roach hydra midgames are very different from swarmhost midgames in larva usage, and also in the relative value of.creep vs larva. | ||
|
FCReverie
Australia103 Posts
On May 26 2013 22:55 _SpiRaL_ wrote: Open up a pro zerg replay in SC2 gears. You will find yourself surprised at what a small difference it makes. Also people should keep in mind that every race has this :/ When you queue up marines on 10 reactor'd barracks late game that is 6aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa or w/e your hotkey setup is. Also when protoss warp in it is wzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttttttt +clicks. I don't know if you know this but in an RTS game you need units and every race spends apm making units. | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:06 SpikeStarcraft wrote: Im calling bullshit on this. I dont think what you showed there means anything. The inject percentage is correlated to the numbers of hatcheries. And in higher level play you have more hatcheries way faster. so after 10 minutes when the master zerg is on 4 base he does way more absolute injects than the silver level player thats still on one base. So thats not an useful comparison. "Wow, the silver level player hits injects on one base almost as good as master level players on 4 base. I guess injects dont really matter that much." Kappa Gotta love it when people dont read the whole paper. They actually state that it turns out that injecting becomes less important as the game goes on and that by having macro hatches and more bases you no longer NEED perfect injects to spend all your minerals/gas. The comparison is useful anyway, a silver player can probably only handle injecting a max 3 bases while a pro can do 6-7 but if larva inject was such a huge factor then even at 6-7 bases pros would NEED to have 80-90% perfect injects to win games. The whole conclusion is that as the game gets longer and thus higher base count and macro hatches and less larva hungry units are produced, then injecting perfectly doesn't matter anymore, obviously it would give you a greater advantage but it isn't essential, as we have been previously told. So really what we can take away from this paper is that there is still a long way to go before Zerg reaches its full potential. If in the lategame Zergs are only hitting 30% of their injects, imagine what one could do if they could keep it above 60%!!!!! Though there would be little need for that, as pointed out in the paper, because once u have enough bases and macro hatches, they produce enough larva all by them selves to use all your income on high expense units like Ultras etc without having to inject very often. | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
I have trying practicing with and improving my injects using this method myself and what I found was that the number of bases mattered ridiculously much. If I stay on two bases reaching 80% was not impossible but as soon as I hit three bases it fell drastically. So I tried really hard to improve this but it's still way below my two base. The thing is, it becomes much less necessary to inject once you have 3-4 hatcheries. It's still important, but if you miss injects with only two hatcheries, some timings will just outright kill you if you try to play your normal game. Also coupled with the fact that if you have more bases you are more vulnerable to harass and it becomes harder to hold which increases the difficulty of hitting all your injects by a ridiculous amount. As your level increases their harass just gets controlled better so even if you are faster than the lower league, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have more free actions to inject. The point of all this is indeed, that if higher level players take more bases faster, then that is definitely going to affect the result of this. And it would seem like they do according to the guys who did the SQ study where higher level players had higher income faster. But this still proves that you can't just use this method straight up to measure your injects. You will have to look at your number in relation to game time and number of bases. This is still just a theory to explain this, but logically, when watching low level games vs high level games, there seems to be a massive difference. So my point is that I think this rather proves that the method for measuring ability to inject is not good enough. Another factor could be choice of strategy. Though I have no base to suggest how they would differ across leagues, I know from my personal play that if I go for swarm host queen or broodlord queen attacks vs Protoss and Terran respectively, I am barely going to inject at all once the game reaches a certain point. If these strats has higher prevalence in some leagues, that could affect it as well. It's a shame that some people seem to be jumping on very firm conclusion very quickly. I'm not saying I have the answers, just that we need to know more about other factors / confounders to be certain of things. | ||
|
Dzerzhinsky
Scotland327 Posts
Seems like this would support the idea that injects just aren't something that separates top players from lower players. | ||
|
hearters
Singapore224 Posts
Injects directly relate to larva production, which is a common limiting resource for zergs to spend their resources. And I think it's not unfair to say that spending skill IS something that differentiates grandmasters from golds. | ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
How often you inject your hatcheries is not one of them is all that should be taken from the study. The study is to blame fro trying to answer "why it's not important" of course. We all know there are times when it's important and there are times when it's not. But it's not nearly the constant importance that mineral collection or apm or even supply caps (until maxed) are, which is what the study set out to dis/prove. So the study is very sound in answering their main thesis: "Why we don't teach constant injects as part of training new zerg players." | ||
|
Highpriest
3 Posts
| ||
|
Jezebeth
United States23 Posts
| ||
| ||
