|
On September 12 2011 09:12 jeparie wrote:
What people seem to be ignoring is that cycling your hotkeys to monitor production is important, effective APM.
Sure, you could macro perfectly by only selecting a building when you're going to a build a unit out of it. It is technically possible. It is, however, not realistic, and not nearly as effective as constantly cycling your hotkeys.
This is why someone with high APM will oftentimes have better macro than someone with low apm, even though the recorded APM seems much too high to be useful actions.
Checking on a building to see if you should build a unit there IS A USEFUL ACTION even if you don't build a unit.
From my experience in the PTR, I believe you actually do generate APM for cycling through different control groups at a reasonable pace. I noticed in a replay that my APM increased when switching between a nexus and scouting probe, for example. However, the system doesn't add additional APM for spamming a sequence in quick succession (e.g. 123123123123, you'll only get APM for the first 123).
Because, ideally, you should be capable of cycling through production at regular intervals (and not in super-quick succession) in order to keep up your macro, I don't think there's much of an issue here. Granted, this isn't in any way confirmed, rather just my observation when looking at my PTR games.
|
can they just make 1 action = 1 action and use real seconds
idk maybe my logic is flawed but seems like it'd make sense
|
I think this change is great. Also, I think they should add a feature that remove, let us say, the first 3 minutes of the game, and then display the average APM after that. This will further show the "true" APM and it will be interesting to see which of the pro's that drop from 400 APM to 70. Probably SjoW will turn out to actually be among the highest (non KR) APM'ers after a fix like that.
|
On September 12 2011 09:19 stormfoxSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 09:12 jeparie wrote:
What people seem to be ignoring is that cycling your hotkeys to monitor production is important, effective APM.
Sure, you could macro perfectly by only selecting a building when you're going to a build a unit out of it. It is technically possible. It is, however, not realistic, and not nearly as effective as constantly cycling your hotkeys.
This is why someone with high APM will oftentimes have better macro than someone with low apm, even though the recorded APM seems much too high to be useful actions.
Checking on a building to see if you should build a unit there IS A USEFUL ACTION even if you don't build a unit. From my experience in the PTR, I believe you actually do generate APM for cycling through different control groups at a reasonable pace. I noticed in a replay that my APM increased when switching between a nexus and scouting probe, for example. However, the system doesn't add additional APM for spamming a sequence in quick succession (e.g. 123123123123, you'll only get APM for the first 123). Because, ideally, you should be capable of cycling through production at regular intervals (and not in super-quick succession) in order to keep up your macro, I don't think there's much of an issue here. Granted, this isn't in any way confirmed, rather just my observation when looking at my PTR games.
This is incorrect. Unless the delta between selections needs to be greater than 15s (which is what I just tested on the PTR), then there is no timeout that makes later selections "actionful" again.
|
Considering knowing your APM does nothing for your skill this is such a useless change.
It was just a cool little addition. This does not deserve any attention. APM is needed, yes, but it's not important to know it. You want to have as many effective actions as possible.
|
I don't understand. APM is all of your actions. Actions is any keyboard click or mouse click to interact with the game. Why are they even messing around with this?I feel this is a bad decision on the part of blizzard.
|
Most worthless change ever that makes no sense. So if I constantly issue move command for my unit, it registers as one command? When in reality, these move commands are actually pretty damn important? Although APM is not an essential skill to have, it just makes ppl with lower APM think it's ok to where they at speedwise because they're only have "a little less" APM compared to pro players.
|
yea whatever i dont really care like i'll look at my APM in game 85 ok im sure i'll be sad whe n ifirst see it at like 40 lol. But eventually just get over it.
|
Good change in my opinion. If I'm not mistaken, this will be a more accurate model for EAPM. I think if it is good enough to make a decent estimate at EAPM, we may actually have a reason to check the APM in spectator mode.
It seems that now it will be more like a measurement for effective multitasking.
|
On September 12 2011 09:47 cHaNg-sTa wrote:
Most worthless change ever that makes no sense. So if I constantly issue move command for my unit, it registers as one command? When in reality, these move commands are actually pretty damn important? Although APM is not an essential skill to have, it just makes ppl with lower APM think it's ok to where they at speedwise because they're only have "a little less" APM compared to pro players.
No. Re-read the OP.
|
It does not matter as many others have said but they should still leave well enough alone, apm should be actions per minute not all this stuff they are changing it too. Now its like not all you actions in less than a minute.
|
It's not a good or bad thing, but I honestly don't understand why Blizzard cares about how we see apm / felt the need to change it.
|
On September 12 2011 09:39 Kambing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 09:19 stormfoxSC wrote:On September 12 2011 09:12 jeparie wrote:
What people seem to be ignoring is that cycling your hotkeys to monitor production is important, effective APM.
Sure, you could macro perfectly by only selecting a building when you're going to a build a unit out of it. It is technically possible. It is, however, not realistic, and not nearly as effective as constantly cycling your hotkeys.
This is why someone with high APM will oftentimes have better macro than someone with low apm, even though the recorded APM seems much too high to be useful actions.
Checking on a building to see if you should build a unit there IS A USEFUL ACTION even if you don't build a unit. From my experience in the PTR, I believe you actually do generate APM for cycling through different control groups at a reasonable pace. I noticed in a replay that my APM increased when switching between a nexus and scouting probe, for example. However, the system doesn't add additional APM for spamming a sequence in quick succession (e.g. 123123123123, you'll only get APM for the first 123). Because, ideally, you should be capable of cycling through production at regular intervals (and not in super-quick succession) in order to keep up your macro, I don't think there's much of an issue here. Granted, this isn't in any way confirmed, rather just my observation when looking at my PTR games. This is incorrect. Unless the delta between selections needs to be greater than 15s (which is what I just tested on the PTR), then there is no timeout that makes later selections "actionful" again.
I have to ask what unit production cycle is 15 seconds or less. Also, were any other actions performed between hotkey cycles? If not, then your testing is unrealistic.
|
On September 12 2011 09:51 RedTerror wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 09:47 cHaNg-sTa wrote:
Most worthless change ever that makes no sense. So if I constantly issue move command for my unit, it registers as one command? When in reality, these move commands are actually pretty damn important? Although APM is not an essential skill to have, it just makes ppl with lower APM think it's ok to where they at speedwise because they're only have "a little less" APM compared to pro players. No. Re-read the OP.
Point taken. Though, stance remains unchanged.
|
On September 12 2011 08:37 nikj wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 08:31 Grijzeham wrote:
I think a part of the reason they have been trying to "fix" the apm (second time now I believe) is because their estimate of your skill is based on in game info (similar to the info that sc2gears provides) apm included so by "fixing" the apm bug's they will be able to more accurately place certain players.
Just to be clear this is based on 0 information at all and is just speculation but it would make some amount of sense, it would also help to explain why 1 guy goes 5-0 in placement and gets diamond while others do the same and get gold/platinum (I 5-0'd on my second account as zerg by 6 pooling and got gold) just a thought.. This is absolutely wrong. If you are interested in how the Ladder really works, I suggest this guide: [G] Comprehensive SC2 League and Ladder Guide
I've read that post before I'm aware you're placed into leagues based on mmr, the problem is that mmr is supposed to be a representation of skill, except "skill" pretty damn hard to judge without watching every single game. So theoretically without watching every single game they need a way to automatically work out your "skill" such as by in game information... like maybe... apm?
|
"How many fruits have you eaten?"
A. "I have eaten 16 apples, 4 oranges, and 3 bananas, so I have eaten 23 fruits"
B. "I have eaten apples, oranges, and bananas, so I have eaten 3 fruits"
Are people still freaking out because Blizzard is choosing B? Who actually cares? People are flaming Blizzard for the sake of flaming Blizzard. Be quiet and discuss something important. The world isn't going to end because Blizzard is undermining the definition of APM that you like the best.
In any case, I think this change is bad because it draws attention to something completely worthless. Whoo.
|
On September 12 2011 11:01 Grijzeham wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 08:37 nikj wrote:On September 12 2011 08:31 Grijzeham wrote:
I think a part of the reason they have been trying to "fix" the apm (second time now I believe) is because their estimate of your skill is based on in game info (similar to the info that sc2gears provides) apm included so by "fixing" the apm bug's they will be able to more accurately place certain players.
Just to be clear this is based on 0 information at all and is just speculation but it would make some amount of sense, it would also help to explain why 1 guy goes 5-0 in placement and gets diamond while others do the same and get gold/platinum (I 5-0'd on my second account as zerg by 6 pooling and got gold) just a thought.. This is absolutely wrong. If you are interested in how the Ladder really works, I suggest this guide: [G] Comprehensive SC2 League and Ladder Guide I've read that post before I'm aware you're placed into leagues based on mmr, the problem is that mmr is supposed to be a representation of skill, except "skill" pretty damn hard to judge without watching every single game. So theoretically without watching every single game they need a way to automatically work out your "skill" such as by in game information... like maybe... apm?
apm has never been considered an accurate measurement of "skill." I hope it would never be considered in the equation for any competitive ladder. In the end it comes down to whether or not you win the game, not who can click faster.
|
Didn't spam in a way that would be affected by this anyways.
|
good change. now people will worry less about how high their apm is. I mean I've tried to improve mine over time and it has continually grown but it really doesn't mean I'm better at the game. It's kind of a silly change but I guess they want people to focus less on their APM and more on building skills.
|
This is a plain stupid change, I mean regardless of what you do u wont reach much more than 100 SAPBM in PTR, I mean while playing like I did before, I had around 220-250APM on a good day.
So thank you Blizzard, for making the measurement even more useless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
