|
On September 24 2011 08:12 gulati wrote:
APM spamming is an old ritual carried out by oldschoolers. It's proven that faster movement allows a player to be able to react on-the-fly at a faster speed when he needs to, since his hands are more used to fast speed.
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that the APM change will make us slower; no. You will still spam if you know it is useful to you, regardless of what the APM charts state in the beginning of the game. However, the ability to see your APM in replays is more of a psychological boost in my opinion.
I don't agree that this should have been changed. If anything, I think the ingame timer should be changed to real time for "Fastest", or any other game mode. I just don't like the timers and APM measurements whatsoever, but I even admit that they won't change anything aside from psychological effects which mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.
please note that sc2gears' apm (from the replays/etc/whatever) is still how it was... so I don't really care (when I look at replays I don't really open the apm tab... there are better tabs to be looking at ...
|
The new APM works exactly I expected. I watched Check v. Sage, and DRG v. Happy. The obs showed APMs occasionally, and guess who had higher APMs*. Now we are seeing who can perform more "actions" (not tapping) every minute and how it relates to skills (and hopefully to win/loss).
*In case you're that dull, it's Sage's APM > Check's, DRG's > Happy's, by significant amount when shown.
|
Sorry to quote myself again, but I haven't heard a single rebuttal to my argument so I'll re-present it.
----
It will have more objective meaning. Clicking actually takes screen time during which you can't really do anything else. That's why you don't see anyone clicking 50 times to move an SCV. IMO, If someone does the same quality macro/micro with less control group spamming, then it's not illogical to value that more.
For example:
- player A does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and it takes her/him avg. 10 cycling through the CCs
- player B does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and it takes her/him avg. 5 cycling through the CCs
- player C does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and she/he doesn't need to cycle around because s/he is simply so well trained to the point that s/he never forgets it without even looking at CCs.
What you get is 3 SCV production every 20 secs, and those are the "Actions" that are measured. How you get there will differ per individual, and I think it's not too absurd to assume, at pro level, if you can do the same/more with less, you're probably a better player. And if you're player C, you may be able to produce marines, marauders, tanks, etc. and better engage in the battle (i.e. more "actions") while player A is busy cycling through CCs to produce SCVs. So if player C does more things while player A cycles around her/his CC, they are counted as "actions" toward the APM.
Basically this new APM measurement doesn't care how you get things done, but it counts the number of things you get done in the same time period. It's definitely more objective way of measuring APM, and it will be much more useful/meaningful than current way of measuring.
----
Some people keep bringing nonsense like "spam-tapping isn't counted but spam-clicking is counted, fail", etc. Think before making yourself silly: Why don't we see pros spam-clicking, unless it's necessary? Because clicking takes screen time during which you really can't do anything else. Mindless spam-clicking move command is a sure way to lose.
Only circumstantial criticism I would consider reasonable is that this new APM makes it more difficult to compare it with that of BW. But that's not a straight/logical answer, but rather an emotional one.
|
I would only spam 125125125125125 when i wanted to show off how fast i coudl get my APM to go.... other than that it was mostly spamming to keep my fingers active.
|
On September 23 2011 09:47 Alpino wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 06:26 MindRush wrote:
APM is not a game-deciding factor - I mean the number it shows.
You can key-tap all day and have excellent APM and run all your marines into banelings, or just forget to build units and pile up resources -> c'mon, don't tell me it didn't happen to you !
At the end all that matters is who won and who lost People need to stop lying to themselves. It obviously is. Look at grubby's new vlog. oGs coach said that his problem was that he played too slow. You can only be at the highest level of play with great APM. SjoW is great but he is not Code S material because he is slow. You can only play a perfect macro game with sick apm. You can only harass and multitask with sick apm. You can see that when multitasking is taking place people's apm will spike. It is simple, as you play faster and faster you'll get the most from your BOs, your decisions and the engagements. Have you never knew something you had to do in a game to win or be in a better position, but you just KNEW you couldn't pull the play atm? It happens to me all the time, if I were faster I would let less minerals float while I harass with my hellions.
i have to agree. you really need to be fast to excel in sc2. it puts you at a huge disadvantage if you can't keep up with your opponents. if you solely depends on your game knowledge to play this game, you won't be able to beat someone who is just as knowledgeable as you're but faster. speed is just so important, but i don't think speed is exactly the same as apm. i do think this change is a better measurement for the speed of a player, but this isn't the definition of apm anymore.
|
Good discussion here, but I think I have something novel to say, if I could be so bold.
I tell all the people I'm playing with, new players and older ones to spam. It increases your hand speed, and also it burns into your brain, so it's reflexive, what the hotkeys are.
My brain is SOOO trained that 1 is scout/harass, 2 is army, 3 is caster (infestor or maybe flank), 4 and up are hatcheries. Spam makes this reflexive. Double tapping early game is burning this into your brain. You don't think of your natrual as a place to mouse look too, you think of it as the key 5.
This is one of the major benifits, and I also think there is one more.
Spamming begins to disconnect your actions from your thinking. You can move your hands to create workers, check building progress, check the safety of your units, scout your enemy, all reflexively. Your hands are just doing the work on auto pilot and your brain can be doing something else. Planning your tech path or trying to predict your opponent.
It happens slowly at first, but builds up over time. Eventually you start to completely disconnect what you are doing on the screen from your brain. Your hands just sort of take care of the automatic things like larva injecting and moving your army or scout away from danger. And your actual thinking is in a completely different place.
What concerns me about this change, is that players I play with are going to see less of an immediate reward from me encouraging them to spam. And hence, may be less likely to really try to keep it up. Which is, as I've said, disconnecting their hands from their brain and making the hotkey actions automatic. Grouping your army keys and constantly re-assigning so when you move it, EVERYONE goes with. This kind of stuff is important, and I think Blizzard has removed some of the motivation for newer players to do this.
The positive note is, as mentioned, their APM looks similar to a masters player, but in reality that just a lie.
Thank you if you read <3
|
Not that APM really matters to me, but I disagree with this "new" calculation. Selecting a control group is an action. It would have been better to not count spamming move commands, as that actually doesnt add to effective actions. Selecting control groups are actions and effective actions, for example when tapping.
|
On September 24 2011 08:59 usethis2 wrote:
Sorry to quote myself again, but I haven't heard a single rebuttal to my argument so I'll re-present it.
----
It will have more objective meaning. Clicking actually takes screen time during which you can't really do anything else. That's why you don't see anyone clicking 50 times to move an SCV. IMO, If someone does the same quality macro/micro with less control group spamming, then it's not illogical to value that more.
For example:
- player A does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and it takes her/him avg. 10 cycling through the CCs
- player B does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and it takes her/him avg. 5 cycling through the CCs
- player C does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and she/he doesn't need to cycle around because s/he is simply so well trained to the point that s/he never forgets it without even looking at CCs.
What you get is 3 SCV production every 20 secs, and those are the "Actions" that are measured. How you get there will differ per individual, and I think it's not too absurd to assume, at pro level, if you can do the same/more with less, you're probably a better player. And if you're player C, you may be able to produce marines, marauders, tanks, etc. and better engage in the battle (i.e. more "actions") while player A is busy cycling through CCs to produce SCVs. So if player C does more things while player A cycles around her/his CC, they are counted as "actions" toward the APM.
Basically this new APM measurement doesn't care how you get things done, but it counts the number of things you get done in the same time period. It's definitely more objective way of measuring APM, and it will be much more useful/meaningful than current way of measuring.
----
Some people keep bringing nonsense like "spam-tapping isn't counted but spam-clicking is counted, fail", etc. Think before making yourself silly: Why don't we see pros spam-clicking, unless it's necessary? Because clicking takes screen time during which you really can't do anything else. Mindless spam-clicking move command is a sure way to lose.
Only circumstantial criticism I would consider reasonable is that this new APM makes it more difficult to compare it with that of BW. But that's not a straight/logical answer, but rather an emotional one.
Maybe more objective meaning for you, but not for me. Your definition action is different to mine. Some player tabs to check their production queue, health/energy of their units. To complete this task, actions are required.
It might show game state changing action more clearly, but it removes the decision layer that it can be potentially useful.
It might not be the right indicator for most people, as many just spams them pointlessly, but frankly I don't think it matters, will you care that a bronze has higher APM than you? No, I don't think so.
You have to understand that APM are meaningless by itself, you can spam all you want and still lose. However those tabbing data are still very important, especially at higher level games. You don't measure yourself against people with highest APM, you measure it with true winners (pros) with high APM.
|
On September 24 2011 09:46 Sveet wrote:
Not that APM really matters to me, but I disagree with this "new" calculation. Selecting a control group is an action. It would have been better to not count spamming move commands, as that actually doesnt add to effective actions. Selecting control groups are actions and effective actions, for example when tapping.
But that is inherently subjective and comparison becomes meaningless. That's the whole point of this new APM. You play the game whichever way you want, and the game will count the actions that occurs on screen. And I'm inclined to believe that it will show a better correlation with a player's multitasking.
|
On September 24 2011 09:25 cursor wrote:
What concerns me about this change, is that players I play with are going to see less of an immediate reward from me encouraging them to spam. And hence, may be less likely to really try to keep it up. Which is, as I've said, disconnecting their hands from their brain and making the hotkey actions automatic. Grouping your army keys and constantly re-assigning so when you move it, EVERYONE goes with. This kind of stuff is important, and I think Blizzard has removed some of the motivation for newer players to do this.
The positive note is, as mentioned, their APM looks similar to a masters player, but in reality that just a lie.
I don't understand this. You're saying that the *only* difference between masters players and <league your friends are in> players is tapping? Masters players don't harass more, produce more, scout more, unit micro more any of that?
If tapping is good, and I believe that it is, it should result in them doing more currently measured actions per minute. If they're just reflexingly tapping because you told them to but not actually doing more stuff as a followup, then their new APM won't increase.
|
On September 24 2011 16:50 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 09:25 cursor wrote:
What concerns me about this change, is that players I play with are going to see less of an immediate reward from me encouraging them to spam. And hence, may be less likely to really try to keep it up. Which is, as I've said, disconnecting their hands from their brain and making the hotkey actions automatic. Grouping your army keys and constantly re-assigning so when you move it, EVERYONE goes with. This kind of stuff is important, and I think Blizzard has removed some of the motivation for newer players to do this.
The positive note is, as mentioned, their APM looks similar to a masters player, but in reality that just a lie.
I don't understand this. You're saying that the *only* difference between masters players and <league your friends are in> players is tapping? Masters players don't harass more, produce more, scout more, unit micro more any of that? If tapping is good, and I believe that it is, it should result in them doing more currently measured actions per minute. If they're just reflexingly tapping because you told them to but not actually doing more stuff as a followup, then their new APM won't increase.
to defend his point you could make the argument that everything you mentioned is a product of tapping. not queuing units (can) lead to more production, harassment isn't nearly as good if the micro to do it makes you stockpile money (except pre 1.4 bfh lol), scouting again, if you have gaps in you're early game probe production because you are microing your scout, it can ruin your build order.
But I digress, it's clear all 3 of us think apm does matter, which is precisely what bothers me about this patch. It clearly benefits people who think that APM does not matter, when they always had the option of not opening the apm tab. I personally have been going by sc2gears apm for a while now anyway, but being able to have it open for the visual sync with the replay was a tool I used from time to time.
|
On September 24 2011 08:59 usethis2 wrote:
Sorry to quote myself again, but I haven't heard a single rebuttal to my argument so I'll re-present it.
----
It will have more objective meaning. Clicking actually takes screen time during which you can't really do anything else. That's why you don't see anyone clicking 50 times to move an SCV. IMO, If someone does the same quality macro/micro with less control group spamming, then it's not illogical to value that more.
For example:
- player A does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and it takes her/him avg. 10 cycling through the CCs
- player B does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and it takes her/him avg. 5 cycling through the CCs
- player C does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and she/he doesn't need to cycle around because s/he is simply so well trained to the point that s/he never forgets it without even looking at CCs.
What you get is 3 SCV production every 20 secs, and those are the "Actions" that are measured. How you get there will differ per individual, and I think it's not too absurd to assume, at pro level, if you can do the same/more with less, you're probably a better player. And if you're player C, you may be able to produce marines, marauders, tanks, etc. and better engage in the battle (i.e. more "actions") while player A is busy cycling through CCs to produce SCVs. So if player C does more things while player A cycles around her/his CC, they are counted as "actions" toward the APM.
Basically this new APM measurement doesn't care how you get things done, but it counts the number of things you get done in the same time period. It's definitely more objective way of measuring APM, and it will be much more useful/meaningful than current way of measuring.
----
Some people keep bringing nonsense like "spam-tapping isn't counted but spam-clicking is counted, fail", etc. Think before making yourself silly: Why don't we see pros spam-clicking, unless it's necessary? Because clicking takes screen time during which you really can't do anything else. Mindless spam-clicking move command is a sure way to lose.
Only circumstantial criticism I would consider reasonable is that this new APM makes it more difficult to compare it with that of BW. But that's not a straight/logical answer, but rather an emotional one.
So who is this supposed 'Player C' then, like who the hell even meets that criteria? And why are you so invested in trying to prove cycling control groups is not actually useful. The lengths people go to apparently try and justify their lower APM is ridiculous. Doesn't the fact that every top level player cycles tip you off to the fact it is blatantly useful...
Note i didn't say everyone who cycles groups even uses it effectively, but if you don't do it you are simply handicapping yourself; unless you going to try keep counters in your head for your production to know when units will come out and it certainly effects your awareness. If not cycling is a handicap then how the hell can it be considered meaningless.
Instead of making inane arguments trying to prove its meaningless why not go and practice doing it and notice your mechanics actually will improve as you get used to it. I say this as someone who is really lazy about control groups anyway, i know i'd improve if i put the effort in this area.
|
I hotkey my hatcheries individually so I tap a lot to check for when my larvae pops. So for me that taps a lot -- not having it count as an action just feels weird. In my opinion it should definitely count as an action.
|
I guess Blizzard wants more third party software to be used. I havent really used sc2gears that much, but I guess I will check a couple of replays there each month to see if I have become faster.
This new form of APM is pretty useless as many has pointed out. It doesnt meassure APM at all.. The thing that puzzles me the most is why move commands is still 1 apm per click. If you select a controlgroup or box a set of units and give 10 move commands they should count as 1, until you select a new group of units. People who spam only to get high APM can just spam movecommands now, and this new form of meassurement is just as faulty as the old one obviously was in Blizzards eyes. Pretty dumb to relase a faulty "fix" if you ask me.
|
On September 24 2011 18:29 infinity2k9 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 08:59 usethis2 wrote:
Sorry to quote myself again, but I haven't heard a single rebuttal to my argument so I'll re-present it.
----
It will have more objective meaning. Clicking actually takes screen time during which you can't really do anything else. That's why you don't see anyone clicking 50 times to move an SCV. IMO, If someone does the same quality macro/micro with less control group spamming, then it's not illogical to value that more.
For example:
- player A does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and it takes her/him avg. 10 cycling through the CCs
- player B does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and it takes her/him avg. 5 cycling through the CCs
- player C does manage constant SCV production from 3 CCs and she/he doesn't need to cycle around because s/he is simply so well trained to the point that s/he never forgets it without even looking at CCs.
What you get is 3 SCV production every 20 secs, and those are the "Actions" that are measured. How you get there will differ per individual, and I think it's not too absurd to assume, at pro level, if you can do the same/more with less, you're probably a better player. And if you're player C, you may be able to produce marines, marauders, tanks, etc. and better engage in the battle (i.e. more "actions") while player A is busy cycling through CCs to produce SCVs. So if player C does more things while player A cycles around her/his CC, they are counted as "actions" toward the APM.
Basically this new APM measurement doesn't care how you get things done, but it counts the number of things you get done in the same time period. It's definitely more objective way of measuring APM, and it will be much more useful/meaningful than current way of measuring.
----
Some people keep bringing nonsense like "spam-tapping isn't counted but spam-clicking is counted, fail", etc. Think before making yourself silly: Why don't we see pros spam-clicking, unless it's necessary? Because clicking takes screen time during which you really can't do anything else. Mindless spam-clicking move command is a sure way to lose.
Only circumstantial criticism I would consider reasonable is that this new APM makes it more difficult to compare it with that of BW. But that's not a straight/logical answer, but rather an emotional one.
So who is this supposed 'Player C' then, like who the hell even meets that criteria? And why are you so invested in trying to prove cycling control groups is not actually useful. The lengths people go to apparently try and justify their lower APM is ridiculous. Doesn't the fact that every top level player cycles tip you off to the fact it is blatantly useful... Note i didn't say everyone who cycles groups even uses it effectively, but if you don't do it you are simply handicapping yourself; unless you going to try keep counters in your head for your production to know when units will come out and it certainly effects your awareness. If not cycling is a handicap then how the hell can it be considered meaningless. Instead of making inane arguments trying to prove its meaningless why not go and practice doing it and notice your mechanics actually will improve as you get used to it. I say this as someone who is really lazy about control groups anyway, i know i'd improve if i put the effort in this area.
How is my argument advocating lower APM?! That's the last thing that I expected anyone to come up with. If anything, higher APM is actually more valuable than before since the new system no longer counts redundant tappings. I don't know who the imaginary player C will be. It was an example to get my point across. My point is that the more things you get done, the higher your APM will be. You are free to be tapping as much as you wish. But we all know how subjective that is, which was precisely the reason why many people considered APM a meaningless (or at least not very reliable) measure in the past. That may change with this new system and higher APM might actually mean something.
BTW, I downloaded the DRG v. Thorzain final replays (patch 1.36) from Dreamhack tournament. DRG basically doesn't miss an inject for the first 15 mins or so. I kept a close eye on his queens and they were like clockwork orange. I don't know how difficult that is for top z players but it looked pretty amazing to me. His APM was around 250.
Then I got to watch a VOD from GSTL (patch 1.40) and when obs showing APMs briefly here and there, DRG's APM was, well, you guessed it - around 250.
P.S. Resorting to personal attack is one of the easiest ways to devalue your own voice. Just a friendly advice.
|
On September 24 2011 16:50 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 09:25 cursor wrote:
What concerns me about this change, is that players I play with are going to see less of an immediate reward from me encouraging them to spam. And hence, may be less likely to really try to keep it up. Which is, as I've said, disconnecting their hands from their brain and making the hotkey actions automatic. Grouping your army keys and constantly re-assigning so when you move it, EVERYONE goes with. This kind of stuff is important, and I think Blizzard has removed some of the motivation for newer players to do this.
The positive note is, as mentioned, their APM looks similar to a masters player, but in reality that just a lie.
I don't understand this. You're saying that the *only* difference between masters players and <league your friends are in> players is tapping? Masters players don't harass more, produce more, scout more, unit micro more any of that? If tapping is good, and I believe that it is, it should result in them doing more currently measured actions per minute. If they're just reflexingly tapping because you told them to but not actually doing more stuff as a followup, then their new APM won't increase.
Whoa I think you totally missed it. Have you ever watched someone new play? They Click on everything, look around the screen for things to do. Pan the camera around for no reason... and have to think for long periods of time about what to do next.
My point is simply that spamming gets you to do things automatically, like pressing 4sdd5sdd... drones made without thinking. Same with scouting. People who have played for years can forget that for everyone your hands just don't tap away as you happily think about something else. The sooner you can disconnect the two the better.
Starcraft is just clicking and tapping, that's it. And no one has to tell a new player to Click.
|
On August 26 2011 22:26 muzzy wrote:
There will be some initial "shock" as players see their lower APM, but it will be good long term, as it's a more realistic measure.
The reason for tapping is to keep yourself in that fast paced mindset, fingers always moving. You'll still want to do that and it will still help you maintain a higher APM. It just won't artificially increase APM.
How will this be realistic pro players go through a control group cycle much faster and more frequently than less capable players.
|
I wouldn't mind seeing both figures to be honest, I can understand that people would be interested in how fast they're cycling. And I'd *really* love to see the kinds of differences in pro player APM numbers before and after 1.4, like the example usethis2 provided of DRG's APM.
|
This change is pretty stupid. It doesn't really make sense to say the new APM calculation better represents player actions if the initial selection still counts as an action. You should either count selection commands or not count them. If I drag scroll select some drones to go deal with a cannon rush but I realize I've selected too many so I quickly shift-click two of them but those two shift-clicks don't count as actions, how are you actually representing how fast the player is? It just doesn't make sense.
|
This thread shows the average TL poster going from "All those bad players spam cause they don't understand that they're not good enough to spam like the pros yet" to "WTF now my APM is lower OMG"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
