On September 19 2003 20:47 Ion)Positive wrote:
I honestly don't think 520 apm does mean alot either. It means you are fast, for sure but it certainly doesn't mean you are one of the fastest hands in bw. imo arang was number one fastest hands, and is now second next to terato. They are both far below 520 but could get it if they wanted. I think 700+ apm would mean something. That would mean you have insanly fast hands. But hand speed also doesn't mean you're good, you need them to be accurate clicks/commands.

9 actions a second in a game sure isnt very impressive. youre right! ...

Fedaykin

Netherlands2003 Posts

September 19 2003 16:17 GMT

#329

500 APM (or any 300+ for that matter) is made up of a huge amount of useless clicks, but then again, everybody issues the move command at least 10 times (probably a lot more) before the actually destination is reached

Shockey

United States2615 Posts

September 19 2003 16:52 GMT

#330

yes but do u realize how fast u have to be to click 9 times a second?

Muhweli

Finland5328 Posts

September 19 2003 16:57 GMT

#331

does selecting multiple units by dragging result in multiple actions or is it just one action holding a lot of parameters. I could check that myself but it's 3am and i'd rather not. 500 APM is inhuman whether it's pointless clicks or not.

XaI)CyRiC

United States4471 Posts

September 19 2003 17:38 GMT

#332

Just face it people, APM does say something. Being able to do more actions than your opponent in the same amount of time is always helpful, no matter if you're at 100 or 500 APM. It's not a coincidence that most of the top players have high APMs, and it's not a coincidence that most ppl with low APM are not that good.

If you try to argue against this, you're just arguing as a devil's advocate with no point other than to just argue. It's obvious that high APM does make you a better player and that better players have high APMs. If you want it to be more obvious, do you think you would have a better chance of winning with an APM of 100 or 300?

Ion)Positive

Morocco1389 Posts

September 19 2003 17:59 GMT

#333

On September 20 2003 02:38 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
If you want it to be more obvious, do you think you would have a better chance of winning with an APM of 100 or 300?

I think it'd matter what my hand speed was. If it was fast and I was 100apm I would take it over slow hands and 300 apm for sure.

threshy

Qatar550 Posts

September 19 2003 18:07 GMT

#334

Ok, Positive, except that doesn't refute anything he said. Of course having fast hands is ideal, but someone with 300 APM is way more likely to have that than someone with 100--therefore APM is a worthwhile measurement.

XaI)CyRiC

United States4471 Posts

September 19 2003 18:13 GMT

#335

Ion)Positive, it's obvious that it's a comparision with all other factors being the same. Meaning, faster APM with same hand speed, skill, intelligence, etc. you have now, or slower APM with same hand speed, etc?

CHN_Danger

United States66 Posts

September 19 2003 18:19 GMT

#336

I think my fingers would cramp up if i had such a high apm.

Beamo

France1279 Posts

September 19 2003 18:25 GMT

#337

On September 20 2003 02:38 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
Just face it people, APM does say something. Being able to do more actions than your opponent in the same amount of time is always helpful, no matter if you're at 100 or 500 APM. It's not a coincidence that most of the top players have high APMs, and it's not a coincidence that most ppl with low APM are not that good.

If you try to argue against this, you're just arguing as a devil's advocate with no point other than to just argue. It's obvious that high APM does make you a better player and that better players have high APMs. If you want it to be more obvious, do you think you would have a better chance of winning with an APM of 100 or 300?

I agree that being able to do more usefull actions then your opponent in the same amount of time is an advantage. But that's not apm...

Now it's true a minimum apm is requiered. I would say 90 to be decent and near 150 to be near pro level (a little less with toss from what everybody says).
But I will never bet on a player because he has 350++ apm while his opponent "only" has 180++

Once and for all APM =/= Skills and never will be.

If your macro is lacking practice your macro, if your micro is lacking practice your micro but don't jut try to boost your apm to get better. Useless clicking won't get U anywhere

XaI)CyRiC

United States4471 Posts

September 19 2003 18:35 GMT

#338

I don't think anyone of reasonable intelligence is still trying to argue that APM equates skill. It's obvious to anyone who understands the game that APM alone won't win you a game and that there are a lot of other factors involved.

However, APM does help and boosting yours can only help in SC/BW. In the slower parts of the game (i.e. beginning where the most you're doing is building and scouting), a high APM may just mean meaningless clicking, but a high APM at mid or late game is quite different. At that point in the game, you better not be sitting around your base selecting and de-selecting your workers and buildings, and most people aren't. At that point, APM becomes VERY useful and can give you the advantage you need to overcome an opponent.

Personally, I'm never in a situation at mid or late game where I think to myself "I'm clicking and moving fast enough to do everything I want to do", and I doubt anyone (even Nada) ever thinks this. The higher the APM, the more micro and macro you're able to perform, and those factors are huge in deciding a winner.

Again, few people still argue that APM = skill. The argument is about the merits of APM and using it to assess a player. I think a high APM has many merits, and that it's also a pretty good way to assess the general playing ability of a player. It's certainly better than looking at their stats or screenname.