EPTMLG Raleigh Stats: APM, Win Ratios by Race - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Kujawa
United States137 Posts
| ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On September 16 2011 10:36 Ryuu314 wrote: I've found that in BW people really like to overstate the value of APM, while in SC2, people tend to understate the value of APM. APM isn't a "meaningless number." It does mean something. A player who can achieve 400 APM will naturally be able to do more stuff than a player who can only achieve 100 APM. The question becomes whether or not the actions they're doing are meaningful. For the most part, lower level players will inflate their APM through spam, so big numbers aren't indicative of much. But, for higher level players, where few, if any, actions are wasted, APM does say quite a lot. If pro A can do 300 meaningful actions a minute, while pro B can only manage 200, all else constant, it's very likely pro A will be able to gain the upper hand simply by being able to make more shit happen at once. voice of reason | ||
|
Perseverance
Japan2800 Posts
What's the formula to covert in-game time apm to real time apm? | ||
|
Lysergic
United States355 Posts
On September 16 2011 10:54 Perseverance wrote: Thanks for the stats ^^ What's the formula to covert in-game time apm to real time apm? Multiply the in-game APM by 1.38 DRG's 274 APM = 379 real APM. And the new APM change is going to make APM calculations meaningless. DRG/Losira/Nada and most pro's are going to have significantly lower APM. | ||
|
partisan
United States783 Posts
The large sample size tends to help but I think there could be a clever solution to weeding out some of the more obvious outliers. Unfortunately I am not a clever person, so I'll leave that someone else. | ||
|
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On September 16 2011 02:56 Micket wrote: best map for denying scouting (tiny main), . Just no, no and no. A small main actually makes it very easy for zerg to scout, if you have a big main it's much harder for zerg to actually scout what the terran is doing. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On September 16 2011 10:36 Ryuu314 wrote: I've found that in BW people really like to overstate the value of APM, while in SC2, people tend to understate the value of APM. APM isn't a "meaningless number." It does mean something. A player who can achieve 400 APM will naturally be able to do more stuff than a player who can only achieve 100 APM. The question becomes whether or not the actions they're doing are meaningful. For the most part, lower level players will inflate their APM through spam, so big numbers aren't indicative of much. But, for higher level players, where few, if any, actions are wasted, APM does say quite a lot. If pro A can do 300 meaningful actions a minute, while pro B can only manage 200, all else constant, it's very likely pro A will be able to gain the upper hand simply by being able to make more shit happen at once. Eh I don't think it was overstated in BW. The minimum apm required just to macro efficiently was higher in BW than SC2, plus with the pathing and more control groups etc, you NEEDED more apm to do the same tasks you do in SC2. Not saying that apm isn't important in SC2 though. There was a good point made about strelock, by who I can't remember, but he gets by with 90 apm cause of his builds and strategic decisions, but when the game gets more fleshed out, and other people start doing the same thing, his apm will inevitably force him to fall behind. | ||
|
oDieN[Siege]
United States2905 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16092 Posts
No but seriously I wish there was a way to get stats this detailed from the ladder. | ||
|
Mangix
United States115 Posts
| ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On September 16 2011 03:44 Exarl25 wrote: It will have less meaning, not more. Legitimately cycling through control groups will no longer count but clicking 50 times to move an SCV will still cause your to APM skyrocket. 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 25 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. It's definitely more objective way of measuring APM, and it will be much more useful/meaningful than current way of measuring. | ||
|
FlamingTurd
United States1059 Posts
| ||
|
MonkSEA
Australia1227 Posts
On September 16 2011 12:17 Mangix wrote: Shouldn't it be SK.Nada? :O It's based off the site sign-up, and Nada signed up with the ogs tag ^^; | ||
| ||
