EPTWhat's the problem with having both statistics shown? Wouldn't that make both groups happy?
Official State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 1628
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
What's the problem with having both statistics shown? Wouldn't that make both groups happy? | ||
QTIP.
United States2113 Posts
On October 01 2011 03:47 dcemuser wrote: Why don't they just show APM and EAPM both? What's the problem with having both statistics shown? Wouldn't that make both groups happy? I know right. I wonder whose idea at Blizzard this was. They didn't bother to explain it in the 1.4 Notes either. | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On October 01 2011 03:47 Kilby wrote: Nono, close but you are not quite there. My point is that when your goal is to measure the actions a player does in a minute you should not take into account the multiples of each action. In other words you should not take into account redundant "actions" because those are not really actions, they are just pointless spam that is intended to keep your "APM" high. So you should only take into account the actual effective actions and measure those. I think we would get a more realistic view of the player's actual speed through that. Well unfortunately there are people out there and top level players who want to see if they're able to keep their APM high. Because when you want to warm up your hands in passive portions of the game and be able to do a lot of "effective apm" later in the game. Honestly there's a simple solution to APM spam: don't consider it in the beginning portions of the game or feel like it's a bad thing! | ||
|
Eeevil
Netherlands359 Posts
On October 01 2011 03:34 Gamegene wrote: That's what you think about how they think. They think differently. As aforementioned, the God of War: July? Golden mouse winner? Famous for his muta micro? Obviously they care about how you play. Everyone should, but it's like of like Tyler mentioned in the last SOTG. They want to see how fast you can do things. I think at least some later BW pros were picked only for their mechanics. Zero comes to mind as a player who got picked for a pro team simply because he was so damn fast. Guys like Bisu and Jaedong could and can do certain winning builds because they were so fast, slower players (even pros) need not try to mimic some of the things they do. Better mechanics increases the builds you can do and expands the potential number of strategies you can use. The biggest problem about the new APM is that it's not APM, and that the simple number (APM) is mucked by a bit of code, who we have to trust in making the right distinction between an effective and a non effective action. I don't trust that bit of code to make this distinction. | ||
|
guyondrugs
Germany48 Posts
On October 01 2011 03:47 Kilby wrote: Nono, close but you are not quite there. My point is that when your goal is to measure the actions a player does in a minute you should not take into account the multiples of each action. In other words you should not take into account redundant "actions" because those are not really actions, they are just pointless spam that is intended to keep your "APM" high. So you should only take into account the actual effective actions and measure those. I think we would get a more realistic view of the player's actual speed through that. The point is, it is quite difficult to define some rules, which actions are really redundant and which are still useful. If there would be 2 different numbers, 1 for actual apm and 1 for effective apm, it would be fine. But Blizzards rules for eapm are obviously not optimal, plus it isn't really clear which actions are counted and which are not. | ||
|
Kilby
Finland1069 Posts
On October 01 2011 03:50 Gamegene wrote: Well unfortunately there are people out there and top level players who want to see if they're able to keep their APM high. Because when you want to warm up your hands in passive portions of the game and be able to do a lot of "effective apm" later in the game. Honestly there's a simple solution to APM spam: don't consider it in the beginning portions of the game or feel like it's a bad thing! Well, yeah but in a way I just don't really see the relevance of that. It's almost like asking how well you can juggle while playing. And average APM stil recods the beginning portions of the game as well. And the average APM still accounts for the beginning portions. I guess it can give newcomers a pretty bad idea of what to focus on. | ||
|
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
JP if you not gonna put it up, just tell us.. | ||
|
Condor Hero
United States2931 Posts
On October 01 2011 03:26 Kilby wrote: I just listened to the first 27 mins of the mp3 and I'm like, holy shit did they just remove everyone who can think rationally? If they eliminate the spam from APM then how exactly do they ruin APM? If that means everyone suddenly has the same APM then how is that wrong? Artosis says "now you can't tell if someone is fast or slow". Well, if I click move command once and another guy clicks the same move command three times that doesn't exactly mean he is three times as fast as me. In fact he is not three times as fast as me, and everyone who says he is three times as fast is simply wrong. In fact he is just as fast as me and only one third as efficient. I was really surprised that Tyler and even Day9 went on to talk about how stupid the new APM is. Of course it eliminates like 30% of the APM of the biggest spammers but there's nothing wrong in that. In fact, that is a very good thing. Spamming isn't fast play. Spamming is spamming. The new APM will actually show if someone is really faster than someone else. So the hosts aren't rational because their definition of APM isn't the same as yours. There's nothing wrong with everyone suddenly having the same APM but if everyone is 50-60 I fail to see the point of an APM counter at all. Btw, spamming, despite how you feel about it, is still an action. No, APM is not a definitive measure of skill, but it's something Blizz thinks the community likes (since they didn't create it themselves) so they added a tab for it in Sc2. I don't get why they would take something the community likes then just fuck it all up. This is a totally unnecessary change and quite frankly a move that makes a lot of people facepalm. You got pros being harassed by fuckers like Deezer, no cross regional play, no lan and Blizz is spending their time messing around with different color icons and how to measure APM. | ||
|
Kilby
Finland1069 Posts
On October 01 2011 03:58 guyondrugs wrote: The point is, it is quite difficult to define some rules, which actions are really redundant and which are still useful. If there would be 2 different numbers, 1 for actual apm and 1 for effective apm, it would be fine. But Blizzards rules for eapm are obviously not optimal, plus it isn't really clear which actions are counted and which are not. I absolutely agree with that. My original point was that I was amazed how blatanly the SOTG crew crushed the new APM without even discussing it much. Of course it is far from perfect but it is still better than the original. | ||
|
mucker
United States1120 Posts
On October 01 2011 03:47 Kilby wrote: Nono, close but you are not quite there. My point is that when your goal is to measure the actions a player does in a minute you should not take into account the multiples of each action. In other words you should not take into account redundant "actions" because those are not really actions, they are just pointless spam that is intended to keep your "APM" high. So you should only take into account the actual effective actions and measure those. I think we would get a more realistic view of the player's actual speed through that. How is it pointless to keep your APM high? Warming up and staying in a rhythm is, especially for really fast players, quite important. A measurement is meaningless if you are excluding part of what your are trying to measure. APM is meant to be a raw stat. It isn't some actions per almost minutes. Thankfully the SC community comes though (like always) when Blizzard gets dumb and we have the tools we need already in place. | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On October 01 2011 04:03 Kilby wrote: I absolutely agree with that. My original point was that I was amazed how blatanly the SOTG crew crushed the new APM without even discussing it much. Of course it is far from perfect but it is still better than the original. They don't think it's better than the original. They clearly stated that they didn't want anything BUT the original. Plus I think we can all agree that Blizzard's new EAPM counter is full of shit. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On October 01 2011 03:26 Kilby wrote: I just listened to the first 27 mins of the mp3 and I'm like, holy shit did they just remove everyone who can think rationally? If they eliminate the spam from APM then how exactly do they ruin APM? If that means everyone suddenly has the same APM then how is that wrong? Artosis says "now you can't tell if someone is fast or slow". Well, if I click move command once and another guy clicks the same move command three times that doesn't exactly mean he is three times as fast as me. In fact he is not three times as fast as me, and everyone who says he is three times as fast is simply wrong. In fact he is just as fast as me and only one third as efficient. I was really surprised that Tyler and even Day9 went on to talk about how stupid the new APM is. Of course it eliminates like 30% of the APM of the biggest spammers but there's nothing wrong in that. In fact, that is a very good thing. Spamming isn't fast play. Spamming is spamming. The new APM will actually show if someone is really faster than someone else. There's no wiggle room on how APM is calculated. It's misleading to not include all actions, or to not do it over a time period of a minute. If people want to create another measure, then they can create another measure, and we expressed our support for that when the originator of APM coded EAPM (effective actions per minute). But when they make that new measure, they need to give it an accurate name. They can't call it APM. I have no idea why anyone wants APM usurped. Make new terms for describing new things. Leave APM alone!!! | ||
|
Kilby
Finland1069 Posts
On October 01 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote: There's no wiggle room on how APM is calculated. It's misleading to not include all actions, or to not do it over a time period of a minute. If people want to create another measure, then they can create another measure, and we expressed our support for that when the originator of APM coded EAPM (effective actions per minute). But when they make that new measure, they need to give it an accurate name. They can't call it APM. I have no idea why anyone wants APM usurped. Make new terms for describing new things. Leave APM alone!!! That I actually agree with. If the goal is to know the clicking speed/finger speed and the total actions (whatever they might be) a minute then the absolute raw APM is the way to go. But I guess in that case it should also be decided if to use the "Blizzard minute" or the IRL minute. Personally I'm just not that interested in how fast a player can click or move their fingers. I'm more interested in how fast and well they can actually play. | ||
|
stormchaser
Canada1009 Posts
| ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On October 01 2011 04:14 Kilby wrote: That I actually agree with. If the goal is to know the clicking speed/finger speed and the total actions (whatever they might be) a minute then the absolute raw APM is the way to go. But I guess in that case it should also be decided if to use the "Blizzard minute" or the IRL minute. Personally I'm just not that interested in how fast a player can click or move their fingers. I'm more interested in how fast and well they can actually play. You keep bringing yourself into this. | ||
|
QTIP.
United States2113 Posts
On October 01 2011 04:14 Kilby wrote: That I actually agree with. If the goal is to know the clicking speed/finger speed and the total actions (whatever they might be) a minute then the absolute raw APM is the way to go. But I guess in that case it should also be decided if to use the "Blizzard minute" or the IRL minute. Personally I'm just not that interested in how fast a player can click or move their fingers. I'm more interested in how fast and well they can actually play. You're missing the point. It's not "absolute raw APM". That is exactly what APM is. Precisely the definition. There is no "raw" or " absolute" APM. There is APM, and there is non-APM. Blizzard made non-APM. | ||
|
Kilby
Finland1069 Posts
I don't understand. Please explain? You do realise what a discussion forum means, right? | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On October 01 2011 04:18 Kilby wrote: I don't understand. Please explain? You do realise what a discussion forum means, right? A lot of your arguments revolves around the fact that "APM spamming is terrible" and therefore the measurement of APM is terrible because it allows APM spamming to be included. | ||
|
Kilby
Finland1069 Posts
On October 01 2011 04:16 QTIP. wrote: You're missing the point. It's not "absolute raw APM". That is exactly what APM is. Precisely the definition. There is no "raw" or " absolute" APM. There is APM, and there is non-APM. Blizzard made non-APM. Well, as I mentioned it just all comes back to the definition of an action. What an action actually is and if the same action twice should be counted as one action or two | ||
|
Papulatus
United States669 Posts
The reason that Blizzard completely removed APM and turned it into EAPM is it appeal to slow casuals. | ||
| ||
