EPTUser was temp banned for this post.
Never Miss An Inject? What the Data Say - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Windwaker
Germany1597 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Vanngar
United States30 Posts
| ||
|
Ahelvin
France1866 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:22 dsjoerg wrote: And then: Now people know that the higher-level players are not hitting perfect injects on their 4 bases. Maybe you already knew that, I didn't. The original goal of this work was to set a benchmark for inject %. Ideally, we could tell a player, "Good job, your injects were Master-level in that game" as we currently do with Spending. However, based on the data, we cannot do that. That was the main conclusion of the article. You are suggesting the the # of bases and the absolute # of larva are very important, more important than the inject %. Good idea, I should study those at some point.  It should be useful to introduce the number of hatcheries as a covariate for the inject %, what do you think? | ||
|
dsjoerg
United States384 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Injects are important, no matter what what your poor interpretation and technique of your data says. I shared the data in the article so that experts like you can get in there and show me how it's done. Case in point, Masters will always have low energy queens, Silver will not. Yes, I expect that high-level players are spending their Queen energy on creep tumors in favor of injecting in the later game, to some extent. That reinforces my point, which is that inject is (surprisingly) not the priority for high-level players. 30% Masters will have worse injects than the average Silvers? Don't kid yourself. Not even 1% of masters will have worse injects than the average silver, who would be still be Bronze league level under WoL. It just shows your methodolgy is flawed. Please substantiate with an argument, or data, or something. Surely we can have a better discussion than a meaningless repeat of "Yes!" "No!" "Yes!" "No!". Have you looked at Masters-level and Silver-level matches? I have, and you won't have to look at very many to be struck by how the Silver-level players are doing fine in terms on Inject %. It is truly surprising. All in all, this is just a poorly disguised advert for your sc2 training method. I would love to advertise GGTracker and TheStaircase, but why don't we talk about injects instead. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:34 tenklavir wrote: Take a look at your Unit tab counts toward the end of the game in a replay. How many larvae do you have? Do you need to keep injections that high to still be competitive at that point in the game or can you focus your APM elsewhere? Where is the unit tab? I see army composition but nothing that has larvae. Also, 5 actions (or 10 per minute) really isnt that much to keep larvae injecting. | ||
|
dsjoerg
United States384 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:35 Vanngar wrote: Queen energy or total larva spawned seem like a significantly better way of going about this. I agree, but then again it depends on your goal. People go on about how critical injects are, they are right here in this thread. Rather than total larva spawned, how about larvablock? To my way of thinking that cuts to the point, which is that you should always have enough larva so that you don't get larvablocked. | ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
Why I see absolutely no flaw in that aproach at all. | ||
|
Ammoth
Sweden391 Posts
A few seconds here and there will result in alot of unused energy, can't this be used in order to figure a way to measure the efficiency of ones macro? I'm kinda tired so I might be way off! Cool data nonetheless | ||
|
SiguR
Canada2039 Posts
When there is an odd occurrence in the data collected it is usually either a significant finding or a flaw in the analysis/data collection. Considering the possible problems outlined in the posts before mine I think it is still a stretch to draw any conclusions from the analysis. More study necessary! | ||
|
tenklavir
Slovakia116 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:41 sitromit wrote: So this article essentially takes Idra and a bunch of random masters players as the high benchmark of skill, and claims based on raw mathematical analysis of their inject rates across random games played out in very different scenarios, that injecting is not very important. Why I see absolutely no flaw in that aproach at all. Is 44,000+ games across from the largest leagues by population % not randomly sampled enough for you? Is there some game scenario not being captured? | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:41 sitromit wrote: So this article essentially takes Idra and a bunch of random masters players as the high benchmark of skill, and claims based on raw mathematical analysis of their inject rates across random games played out in very different scenarios, that injecting is not very important. Why I see absolutely no flaw in that aproach at all. It's 44,000 games. Don't be dismissive because you don't emotionally agree with the results. | ||
|
Embir
Poland567 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:13 darkscream wrote: this mentality is disgusting and a cancer on the entire starcraft 2 scene. Guess which race has the highest APM on average? No, it's not terran.. we can cherrypick stats all day long. APM has nothing to do with difficulty of playing with given race. In SC2 Zerg gets spikes of APM because of production with larva, when you push S and then constantly hold R or Z you got massive APM spikes, thus Zerg players often got the highest APM. | ||
|
Teoman
Norway382 Posts
I don't think higher level players are just as bad at injecting as lower level players. It is just that there are a lot more factors that make constant injects impossible at higher levels (harrass, difference in base taking, emphasis on creep, idle larva). | ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:45 DemigodcelpH wrote: It's 44,000 games. Don't be dismissive because you don't personally agree with the results. 44K random games. One may be 5 minutes. The other may be a 40 minute game where the player pulled all his Queens off the hatcheries in the last 15 minutes to transfuse his Ultras. And these are random ladder players, not exactly the high benchmark of skill, and frankly, neither is Idra. | ||
|
tenklavir
Slovakia116 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:50 sitromit wrote: 44K random games. One may be 5 minutes. The other may be a 40 minute game where the player pulled all his Queens off the hatcheries in the last 15 minutes to transfuse his Ultras. And these are random ladder players, not exactly the high benchmark of skill, and frankly, neither is Idra. You realize random sampling is precisely what you want, right? | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20343 Posts
Guess which race has the highest APM on average? No, it's not terran.. My APM gets a 30-50% inflation when i offrace as zerg man People seem to think APM correlates to player, when infact it's extremely variable based on race | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
Vanngar
United States30 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:41 dsjoerg wrote: I agree, but then again it depends on your goal. People go on about how critical injects are, they are right here in this thread. Rather than total larva spawned, how about larvablock? To my way of thinking that cuts to the point, which is that you should always have enough larva so that you don't get larvablocked. That seems like it could provide something interesting too, but then again, due to the nature of teching for zerg, they stockpile larva (i.e. saving larva so they can mutate 10 mutas at once or just waiting for a roach warren) and it would become potentially meaningless after 200/200 though it may be best to only keep this data relegated to the first x amount of minutes for that and other reasons? the nature of zerg seems to make it hard to get anything concrete here | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
If a zerg is spending most of their time over 3 larva it means that their hatchery isn't producing any, which is nearly just as bad as a queen not doing anything. On May 22 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote: I think if one analyzed "larva produced", you would see a great difference between the leagues. This would account for spending of larva, thus enabling automatic larva production, and also having more bases. Or this. Similar things since optimal larva production would require hatcheries to always have less than 3 larva. Sometimes larva doesn't get used though despite good production amounts, so it might be good to say "larva expended", but at that point it's hardly any different from just saying "units produced" :\ | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:49 Teoman wrote: I think what some people are saying is really what it is. I don't think higher level players are just as bad at injecting as lower level players. It is just that there are a lot more factors that make constant injects impossible at higher levels (harrass, difference in base taking, emphasis on creep, idle larva). Maybe part is the fact that higher level players are active on the map, while lower levels are looking at their bases lol. | ||
| ||
