I get like 250 apm sc2, 350-370 sc1.

There seems like theres less to do, but I can't slow down now.

I think everyone thinks it's 1.35x or something right? or 1.5x?

fevax

Turkey143 Posts

May 11 2010 12:24 GMT

#124

sc1: 80-130
sc2: 70-100

ROOTdrewbie

Canada1392 Posts

May 11 2010 12:27 GMT

#125

theres a program called "sc2gears" that shows you your apm, its like bwchart for sc2. anyways, my apm in bw was anywhere from 180-250 when i was at my best and depending on the matchup, and in sc2 it seems to be 100-120ish. I think the reason why everyone's apm is lower ATM is just because nobody has played the game for 1000 hours and mastered doing everything at top speed in the mid/late game, it seems that everyone over 150 apm right now is just spamming needlessly instead of actually trying to learn the game.

danbel1005

United States1319 Posts

May 11 2010 12:48 GMT

#126

LMFAO.

People and their APM issues.

qazqwezxc

Canada91 Posts

May 11 2010 12:51 GMT

#127

On May 11 2010 21:48 danbel1005 wrote:
LMFAO.

People and their APM issues.

It helps people like to me get better at the game when there are a lack of people that actually give feedback when your sucking.

apm 60 - 70 SC2

SiNiquity

United States734 Posts

May 11 2010 16:11 GMT

#128

My average SC2 APM at the end of replays is around 70, but peaks at around 200 in battle (need to get better with my hotkeys for buildings / locations).

Never measured it in BW.

kevin349

United States68 Posts

May 11 2010 16:14 GMT

#129

Here is the math behind the APM difference. You can easily prove that this is correct by going into a game and choosing slower speed setting and easily getting over 1500 apm. If you have any questions or concerns post or pm!

StayFrosty

Canada743 Posts

May 11 2010 16:52 GMT

#130

lol love the jpeg

Perfect Balance

Norway131 Posts

May 11 2010 17:00 GMT

#131

Inspiration.

Wi)nD

Canada719 Posts

May 11 2010 17:11 GMT

#132

SC1 : 210
SC2 : 165

not exactly sure on sc2 one, changes every game lol

Talic_Zealot

688 Posts

May 11 2010 17:25 GMT

#133

90% of the difference comes from 'invalid' commands. 0p9p0p9p will not result in 6 actions if you don't have enough minerals. The other 10% is from the reduced number of clicks for macro 4d5d6d7d8d can be w shift d click click etc. 6sdddddd and so on. Despite this i think that sc2 is as challenging of a game for speed or even harder. The macro mechanics don't only require you to click now but to shift your focus for 2-3 seconds and then shift it back.. which despite the 4-6 actions is really hard.

Xursian

Canada94 Posts

May 11 2010 17:41 GMT

#134

sc1 : 120
sc2 : 80
Play Terran only.

Pulimuli

Sweden2766 Posts

May 11 2010 17:52 GMT

#135

bw~300
sc2~230

not using any multipliers, 230 is what the in-game apm bar shows

LagLovah

Canada552 Posts

May 11 2010 17:54 GMT

#136

i had 220apm in war3 average.. my average in sc2 is like 110

NightOne

Canada215 Posts

May 11 2010 18:06 GMT

#137

On May 12 2010 02:54 LagLovah wrote:
i had 220apm in war3 average.. my average in sc2 is like 110

lies!~ your avg apm in war3 was like 110 as well

my war3 apm was 280.. sc2 apm... 150? no offence to this game.. but it almost seems like u do less... (definately less microing units in and out of battle) no surrounds... very seldom do u get a chance to "trip" units running away... yeah.. just a diff game with diff micro.. war3 also had smart-cast so nothing new there...

LightYears

39 Posts

May 11 2010 19:54 GMT

#138

I've played WC3 mostlyI could get round 200+ in broodwar as well last year when I tried it again, . Yet, in SC2 it is so hard to get high apm and it decreases so much the times you dont use much actions. Why does it decrease so much

Ah well some good players still keep around 200.

Those whose who get 200+ in BW/WC3 are not making less. Actually you make more but the APM system of SC2 is weird. Go back to WC3 or BW you are likely to have more APM after playing SC2

Issor

United States870 Posts

May 11 2010 20:16 GMT

#139

That JPEG is incorrect. Test this yourself but multiplying time shown for a game on a score screen by 1.33333 (etc). It will equal (rather, approximate quite closely) the time displayed for the replay. The modifier is 1.3333333.

kevin349

United States68 Posts

May 11 2010 20:20 GMT

#140

I sat in game, with a stop watch, and timed 5 minutes on the replay with time on the stop watch then averaged that and came up with 42.5seconds/game min