[RamboLicious]

Originally Posted by ChadMann

The goal of this calculator is to get a low number or a high number?

I dunno I ran it on a few 1v1 games I had and there was very different levels of macro being employed. The player that won out macro'd and stomped the other, however had more workers and more avg unspent... their SQ scores were similar.

The sum doesn't seem like it considers enough variables to be accurate.. like time and workers... but then you got to factor in harrasment causing lower worker counts at varied points in time. As for example, the first game with 501 unspent and 1731 avg income meals totally different things if the game length was 17 mins... or 37 mins. and will cause a significant difference to the macro in game.

That being said, I don't feel that I know enough about the formula to really make an assessment.. but i'll probably look into it soon..

The goal of this calculator is just for calculating your SQ. Your goal to "macro like a pro" can be translated as having a high SQ.

The length of your game wouldn't really matter, as long as it's "long enough" and it's a normal game (I wouldn't call it normal if you have 10k mineral and 200/200 food for like 5 minutes - if you know what I mean). What really matter is your AI (Average Income) and your AUR (Average Unspent Resource)

As the example I gave above, the more bases you have, the more AI and the harder it is to maintain a lower AUR.
Hence, while in the 2nd game, my AI is only twice as much, and my AUR is tripled, I still have a better - higher SQ.

[syfChadMann]

Originally Posted by RamboLicious

The goal of this calculator is just for calculating your SQ. Your goal to "macro like a pro" can be translated as having a high SQ.

The length of your game wouldn't really matter, as long as it's "long enough" and it's a normal game (I wouldn't call it normal if you have 10k mineral and 200/200 food for like 5 minutes - if you know what I mean). What really matter is your AI (Average Income) and your AUR (Average Unspent Resource)

As the example I gave above, the more bases you have, the more AI and the harder it is to maintain a lower AUR.
Hence, while in the 2nd game, my AI is only twice as much, and my AUR is tripled, I still have a better - higher SQ.

Refer to my previous post... but can i also add..
This also doesn't consider situations where you get a 200/200 army vs another 200/200 army.. obviously you don't want to just run in cause you need to keep macroing.. so it's a good idea to sack units... no.
you might sit on 200 looking for the right position or to catch your opponent out of position before you engage... This could cause you avg unspent to sky rocket... tho of course its a good idea to build more unit producing facilities so you can macro off the back of the big 200 vs 200 engagement.. which is going to spend some money..

anyway, this SQ calculator is an interesting concept and a good benchmarking tool.. but I think it has alot of flaws and lacks to consider some variables.. which SC2 is filled with...
Just my opinion.

[RamboLicious]

Originally Posted by ChadMann

anyway, this SQ calculator is an interesting concept and a good benchmarking tool.. but I think it has alot of flaws and lacks to consider some variables.. which SC2 is filled with...
Just my opinion.

yep. that's what it really is. It's surely not 100% correct, that's why we need more than just a small number of examination.
There can be a lot of flaws, however, statistically, that still reflect the macro ability of one vs the other.
A better / higher class player will have a great chance of having higher SQ comparing to the other