EPTNever Miss An Inject? What the Data Say - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
garbanzo
United States4046 Posts
| ||
|
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? 17 minute game 0 larvae 70% injects 10 minute game 2 larvae 76% injects 23 minute game 14 larvae 62% injects (maxed with bank, just remaxing with any lost units) 23 minute game 0 larvae 65% injects (first game in a month and a half) 16 minute game 16 larvae 77% injects (maxed with bank, remaxing with lost units) These are my most recent games outside of the 35 minute zvz | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:57 Kaitlin wrote: Maybe part is the fact that higher level players are active on the map, while lower levels are looking at their bases lol. Only looking outside of your base is equally bad. High level players do both. | ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:53 tenklavir wrote: You realize random sampling is precisely what you want, right? No, with the number of things that can happen in a game that can affect why a player may or may not be injecting, random is exactly what you DON'T want. Say a player is under attack and transfuses a spine crawler instead of injecting. If you just analyze that mathematically, you come up with the conclusion that that player has less than perfect injects, when in fact he made a calculated sacrifice. It doesn't mean inject is not important, or that it's enough to inject with 60% efficiency and any better makes no difference. The number one rule in doing research that is meaningful in any way, is to control and reduce the number of variables. | ||
|
tenklavir
Slovakia116 Posts
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. Agreed, though this is a fundamentally different question. | ||
|
See.Blue
United States2673 Posts
| ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On May 22 2013 05:00 sitromit wrote: No, with the number of things that can happen in a game that can affect why a player may or may not be injecting, random is exactly what you DON'T want. Say a player is under attack and transfuses a spine crawler instead of injecting. If you just analyze that mathematically, you come up with the conclusion that that player has less than perfect injects, when in fact he made a calculated sacrifice. It doesn't mean inject is not important, or that it's enough to inject with 60% efficiency and any better makes no difference. The number one rule in doing research that is meaningful in any way, is to control and reduce the number of variables. That's not how statistics work, nor what the data is measuring. The analysis says nothing about only applying to unrealistic scenarios where you don't have to do anything else on the map like you keep making up. 44,000 games is a comprehensive sample size for what it's actually measuring which is inject up-time across skill level. | ||
|
tenklavir
Slovakia116 Posts
On May 22 2013 05:00 sitromit wrote: No, with the number of things that can happen in a game that can affect why a player may or may not be injecting, random is exactly what you DON'T want. Say a player is under attack and transfuses a spine crawler instead of injecting. If you just analyze that mathematically, you come up with the conclusion that that player has less than perfect injects, when in fact he made a calculated sacrifice. It doesn't mean inject is not important, or that it's enough to inject with 60% efficiency and any better makes no difference. The number one rule in doing research that is meaningful in any way, is to control and reduce the number of variables. So how many of the 44k games do you think that might be the case and in what way do you think controlling for that will change the results? Do you think that across all leagues examined, only certain players decided whether to transfuse or inject at a given timing? Is this captured in their league placement, if we say Silver league injected while Gold and above transfused and therefore won the game? | ||
|
LainRivers
United States36 Posts
I have no proof and this is just my assumption...but I assume the higher the league the more harass/multitasking/bases is happening. Making it more difficult to keep up perfect injects, so 60% for a masters may be much harder to maintain than 60% for a silver player. Though I'm sure some masters players just sit back and macro up too, so it's in no way universally harder/expected. Though I'd guess a 60-70% is what blizzard would go for in terms of forgiveness on timings, if zerg required more it may be too unforgiving. | ||
|
sparklyresidue
United States5522 Posts
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. This is an interesting take on the data, lel | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
Injects and macro aren't the same thing. Good injects are an important part of Zerg macro, regardless of what stats may say. These stats are mostly just an indicator that good injects aren't as hard to hit as they appear to be. But other aspects of Zerg macro also matter a lot. Creep spread, not floating larvae, etc. Come to think of it, Silver level play doesn't require as much multi tasking as master level play. I'm guessing that silver players can hit injects more easily because there isn't a lot going on. Once the game pace starts picking up, it's not as evident to hit every larvae inject. Recently I picked up the game again after a really long break, I started in gold and I'm in diamond now. I can assure you that I hit my injects quite, quite, quite better at the moment (when I'm in diamond) then back when I started in gold. | ||
|
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
On May 22 2013 05:00 sitromit wrote: No, with the number of things that can happen in a game that can affect why a player may or may not be injecting, random is exactly what you DON'T want. Say a player is under attack and transfuses a spine crawler instead of injecting. If you just analyze that mathematically, you come up with the conclusion that that player has less than perfect injects, when in fact he made a calculated sacrifice. It doesn't mean inject is not important, or that it's enough to inject with 60% efficiency and any better makes no difference. The number one rule in doing research that is meaningful in any way, is to control and reduce the number of variables. You have a very skewed perception of Master's league games. I don't want to say 'Never', because it's possible it may have happened at least once, but it's extremely unlikely a Masters Zerg player would consciously decide to skip 2 rounds of injects in order to have a transfuse ready to hold off a certain timing. If they have energy for a transfuse, it's because they had extra queen for creep spread or missed injects. I'm extremely surprised by the findings here. Anyone who's claiming higher level players have more bases = harder to inject I'm tempted to call bullshit on, because as a former Zerg player injects took literally 1/2 a second to do no matter how many bases I had, just press 6 (select all queens) F1 V F2 V F3 V F4 V ect, or V V if I had a macro hatch at one of the bases. All I needed to do was get the timing down and the number of bases didn't make a huge difference. Macro hatch / expansion timings may be a better indicator, for example even if a Masters Z and a Silver Z are hitting injects the same amount of the time, if a Masters Z has 3 hatches while a Silver Z has 2 then the Masters Z is much less likely to get larva blocked. Also maybe the amount of time spent doing injects, once I got my inject cycle down to costing 1/2 second every 40 seconds or so Z macro seemed really easy, but I imagine if I was spending 3-4 seconds every 40 seconds on injects it would be much harder. Definitely more research is necessary before any solid conclusions can be made, but I'm still very surprised. Edit: This also might explain why injects always seemed so easy to me, and I was always wondering why people complained about them. Maybe they actually are just easier than we think, and there's something else in Zerg production (i.e. autopilot making drones when you needed to be making units) that makes injects seem hard / unforgiving. | ||
|
NightOfTheDead
Lithuania1711 Posts
| ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
but nice findings! | ||
|
Armada Vega
Canada120 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. well, just to inform you. Zergs apm is always artificially inflated, since holding down Z to make lings is counted as pushing the key down for each ling. If you make 25-36 lings at once, the game counts this as 25-36 actions a second, roughly. This will inflate the zergs current apm to 500 or higher for that one production cycle. This on its own is no big deal. But this effects your average apm based on the number of times you mass produce anything from larvae from the beginning of a game to the end of a game. Often times, a zergs average apm is 30-50apm off. After your game ends, if your average apm was 230, and the terrans is 200-190apm, you have exactly the same apm. The zergs apm is artificially inflated per production cycle that you make while holding down a key. Combine all mass production cycles in a game; drone, ling, roach, muta, overlords, ultralisk, banelings, broodlords, and this greatly effects average apm. | ||
|
butchji
Germany1531 Posts
On May 22 2013 05:27 Armada Vega wrote: well, just to inform you. Zergs apm is always artificially inflated, since holding down Z to make lings is counted as pushing the key down for each ling. If you make 25-36 lings at once, the game counts this as 25-36 actions a second, roughly. This will inflate the zergs current apm to 500 or higher for that one production cycle. This on its own is no big deal. But this effects your average apm based on the number of times you mass produce anything from larvae from the beginning of a game to the end of a game. Often times, a zergs average apm is 30-50apm off. After your game ends, if your average apm was 230, and the terrans is 200-190apm, you have exactly the same apm. The zergs apm is artificially inflated per production cycle that you make while holding down a key. Combine all mass production cycles in a game; drone, ling, roach, muta, overlords, ultralisk, banelings, broodlords, and this greatly effects average apm. I feel like a Korean when I morph banelings. Dat APM. | ||
|
MaestroSC
United States2073 Posts
isnt this like arguing Terrans who use their mules are better than terrans who never use mules? or "We conducted an experiment and collected data to test whether or not using Chrono boost from your nexus, will increase your chances of success as protoss" ?? | ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
On the other hand, i have never believed that today's zergs have been on top of this mechanic as much as they can be. there are special exceptions say, DRG, Life in certain matchups who actually need the larvae on-demand. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
| ||
|
SoniC_eu
Denmark1008 Posts
| ||
| ||
