~140 apm toss and ~170 apm terran

Here's my recent take on apm. It's useless to compare skill between players, but a good measure that you can use to judge how well *you* are playing in a given game. For example, if I get 200 apm in a tvz it probably means I played very well for myself. Or if I get 120 apm it means I probably sucked / played worse than my usual norm. But you can't extend this at all to comparing different players.

MaGnIfIcA

Norway2312 Posts

October 30 2004 18:39 GMT

#87

Around 140

cYaN

Norway3322 Posts

October 30 2004 18:42 GMT

#88

play terran, have about 120-150 i think
been a while since i check, and i REALLY don't care.
if you have enough clicks to do what you want to do, then that's fine.

Berg_zerg

Germany294 Posts

October 30 2004 18:45 GMT

#89

zerg 80-105 apm average.
i am probably the slowest player on in this thread

but i think its no problem for me to go 150 apm every game by clicking 4 times for every action.
( atm i am mostly clicking 1-2 times for an action.)
yesterday i played a funny ZvsT.
i went lurker/ling and he normal 2 rax academy.
he went out with his m&m army, i flanked him with 3 lurks and 10 lings and game was over after 6 minutes
I noticed that he just send his m&m towards my base in attack mode without looking at them.

after the game he said that he was just buisy with his base and did not look after his m&m
casue he thought they will not be attacked till they reach my sunkens.
the guy had about 110 apm and me 97 apm.

and i thought yeah ,well 110 apm for doing nothing than building m&m and few supply depots.
50 apm would have been enough to do the same^^

Liquid`Jinro

Sweden33719 Posts

October 30 2004 19:42 GMT

#90

On October 30 2004 21:09 blasian wrote:
My average apm is like 125-130 without any useless clicks. In my opinion, i don't think anybody can go over 180 APM if they don't do any useless clicks.

Wrong :O
Try playing, say, PvZ then do 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 key to gateways, 123 for units and go attack while constantly setting 4 dragoon rally 5 zealot rally 6 templar rally etc all to where your army is, and you have to update the rally points non stop.

That is WAY more than 180 apm

Yarertz

Djibouti1891 Posts

October 30 2004 19:53 GMT

#91

Terran: Was 260 now 220 ( getting old ;( )
Zerg: Was 250 now 220 ( same here ;( )
Protoss: Was 190 now 160 ( and again same here ;(((( )

LogaiN

Sweden1073 Posts

October 30 2004 19:58 GMT

#92

T: Around 160
P: Around 150
Z: Around 170

But, I suck =(

pinbaLL

Sweden1711 Posts

October 30 2004 20:21 GMT

#93

who cares? :O

pinbaLL

Sweden1711 Posts

October 30 2004 20:23 GMT

#94

I guess its cool to be fast but it really doesnt matter. There is no real reason to post threads like How to improve APM or What is your APM etc.

Australia89 Posts

October 30 2004 21:16 GMT

#95

mine is about 130-160
i think in tvz games apm goes up cause u gota manage m&m like a hoe against lurkers
and also in zvz apm may be high cause of ling micro

LastWish

2015 Posts

October 30 2004 21:23 GMT

#96

i still don't understand what is this APM freaking about, a Toss/Terran user with 150 APM(for Zerg +20 more maybe) wisely spent doesn't need no more, if u guys click 1,2,3,1,2,3 or so, uselessly than you should think if u are playing a strategy game or a who is the best clicker game. Though FA's reply tells there is a way to have more(effectively), but i don't think u set rally for those buildings 3 times a minute. And later if u have like 20 gateways it can increase apm a bit, but i still don't think the average needed would be above 150.

Destroyer

Czech Republic949 Posts

October 30 2004 21:28 GMT

#97

P 170-220 about
Z 160-210 about
T 190-250 about

Liquid`HayprO

Iraq1230 Posts

October 30 2004 21:32 GMT

#98

it really changes. i can sometimes have around 190 and the next game going up to 300+. i guess that the reason is that when i know that i am gonna win i dont care about playing my best, and also when i have a strat for the whole game i dont care as much about my macro.

DooMeR

United States1519 Posts

October 30 2004 21:47 GMT

#99

On October 30 2004 21:43 on.sp33d wrote:
APM is BS IMHO, especially since now everyone is so focused on purposely raising their APM using logs and real-time APM charters. And everyone that knows about APM and believes in it have 200+ APM. And they usually suck (nothing impressive in beating people in the same old "tournament" maps with startegies ripped from pros). But that's just me.

But interestingly enough, I do admit I reach peaks during the time when I'm most focused in SC, and lowest when I'm restarting to play SC after quitting SC (thanks to games like Pokemon, CS, Diablo II, WC3, Dragon Raja, RO, GB, PS2 games, school, etc.) but that doesn't mean much. =/

The most significant APM measurement would be between *major* battles and whether it's consistent with the rest of the APM rating... and ironically enough, players with superior micro skills or those who win the battle might have a lower APM than their opponent at that time (as for macro, it's really not necessary to smash "z" or whatever a hundred times... buildings have only so many queues, and you'll probably only want to queue two at most, unless you're wealthy).

Oh, before the "hahastoopid u pobly only hvae 40mxa amp neway haha" starts, I have a game jsut barely over 11 minutes that has an average of 944 APM, 941 VAPM, and 1142 Max APM - more reasons on precisely why I think APM is BS. Or how about an observer having up to 2.5 times higher APM than the participants (which there's been increasing sightings of observers with insane APM rates). Or the possibility of having a mere, say 50 or so APM and beating a, say, a ladder finalist with 300+ APM?

But that's just me. =)

no 1 asked you,

he just asked what is everyones apm.