EPTAPM measurements changes in 1.4.0 - Page 30
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ai.Cola
Germany236 Posts
| ||
|
Termit
Sweden3466 Posts
On September 22 2011 04:31 Apolo wrote: And why should a click be an action? Nothing changed in the game, no meaningful command was given to any structure or unit. By your logic everytime you scroll the mouse and the screen has to move would count as an action too. It's a great patch and will only affect spammers. Finally we can see the real apm of the people we play. Hahaha "spammers" and "real apm". Real apm is not what you will get now if anything. | ||
Falling
Canada11563 Posts
On September 21 2011 07:58 iAmJeffReY wrote: It's a benchmark. If you don't abuse it and just cycle hotkeys in down time, it is an actual good measure of playing speed/mutlitasking. If you know your own limits. I was low masters at like 110 apm. I'm now high masters at like... 170 apm prepatch. It's a definite measure, but to be taken with a grain of salt...so to speak. That's the most value I see in it. For BW, a completely new player to the game (in my experience from teaching people) was between 10-15 apm. A non-hotkey using semi-competent newb 40apm, a person consistently using hotkeys- 60apm, but is getting behind in macro and has troubles moving armies. 70-120 macro is getting under control and maneuvers and drops are starting to come together and after that I don't know because my max average apm is only 90, but usually 80. I'm no spammer so I'm not particularly upset, but it is interesting as a very loose benchmark. People make a greater deal of it and it was probably more relevant in BW (no multibase selection) as speed issues almost always translated into macro problems under 100apm (loosely). What doesn't make sense to me is the only thing accurately represented in APM is the P as in per. Actions is actually not all actions and Minute is not actually a minute. It's more a BCAPBM (Blizzard Counted Actions Per Blizzard Minute) It's not even effective APM (eAPM), which would be more valuable. | ||
|
Cyborgryna
Germany12 Posts
 | ||
|
ChriseC
Germany440 Posts
ignore the tabbing aspect of sc2 | ||
|
grigorin
Austria275 Posts
Poll: How much has your apm gone down with patch 1.4 >40% (314) 20-30% (121) <10 % (107) 30-40% (91) 10-20% (83) 716 total votes Your vote: How much has your apm gone down with patch 1.4 (Vote): <10 % maybe someone could add this poll to OP | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
| ||
|
MattyClutch
United States711 Posts
On September 22 2011 06:13 Shikyo wrote: This is a really bad solution, it's like they totally forget that sometimes you just want to check something in the control group without issuing it commands(For instance seeing your SCV building progress) and those are useful actions that now aren't counted. I think that depends on how much value you think APM has. I know having high APM is good, but beyond that I am not sure how much it matters. You might lose a game because you have low APM, but not because of the exact #. It won't be like darn if I had just averaged 68 APM instead of 67 I would totally have won that game. My two cents anyway. I could also be missing something. | ||
|
Kambing
United States1176 Posts
On September 22 2011 06:11 grigorin wrote: I was always wondering why my SC2 apm was as high as my BW apm (and because of sc2 minutes it would have been higher apm) although I felt my gamespeed was faster in BW. Now the 1.4 patch brings the truth ^^ 50 apm lol Poll: How much has your apm gone down with patch 1.4 >40% (314) 20-30% (121) <10 % (107) 30-40% (91) 10-20% (83) 716 total votes Your vote: How much has your apm gone down with patch 1.4 (Vote): <10 % maybe someone could add this poll to OP Fun enough poll that I added it to the OP. | ||
|
GLLvz
Norway122 Posts
APM in sc2? different meaning now? don't give a shit about it tho. not like it matters. | ||
|
duckmaster
687 Posts
| ||
|
eMbAh
Denmark40 Posts
| ||
|
Gantz.z
21 Posts
However, as mentioned before there should be clarification in providing apm and eapm values. | ||
|
hooktits
United States972 Posts
edit by the way BW Apm 230 eapm 120 Sc2 before change Apm 170 Sc2 post 1.4 90-100 | ||
|
SirRobin
United States269 Posts
the only two games I've played of SC2 post 1.4: 106 apm, 111 apm My APM dropped like 18% edit: games were all 20-25 minutes long | ||
|
fishinguy
Russian Federation798 Posts
| ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
On September 22 2011 06:55 HatchetWound wrote: people who really like the change more then likely had slower apm, while the people who are not happy like myself came from a bw back ground and had faster apm and i don't like it edit by the way BW Apm 230 eapm 120 Sc2 before change Apm 170 Sc2 post 1.4 90-100 So your post 1.4 APM is very close to your BW eapm. That shows the patch is working as intended. | ||
|
BWILLdur
United States100 Posts
| ||
|
envee
United States27 Posts
| ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On September 22 2011 07:30 Sadistx wrote: So your post 1.4 APM is very close to your BW eapm. That shows the patch is working as intended. Yea, if you factor in how sc2 calculates APM (based on a blizzard minute as opposed to an actual minute), the numbers are basically exactly the same. Soooo....you shouldn't be upset that it's no longer counting spam? Or that sc2 is finally close to measuring eAPM? Edit: On September 22 2011 07:37 BWILLdur wrote: Consistency is the most important thing using metrics like APM. 90 and 100 APM mean nothing to someone, it's all relative. It's going to be a pain to compare APM from the past to current APM. Even BW APM. When APM is on a different scale than it used to be it becomes a worthless metric. But isn't that what everyone's already saying in this thread? It's already a worthless metric that people like to look at to feel good about how they play. "I won, but i had 350 apm, the guy i beat only had 100, i'm so gosu" "i can't believe i lost, i was playing twice as fast as him" APM doesn't matter as long as you aren't clicking things effectively. (Obviously you need some basic level of apm to be able to do anything, but spamming doesn't make someone better or worse) | ||
| ||
