|
On June 06 2013 10:52 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 10:04 kill619 wrote:That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. APM as a number reading loses the personal identity which makes the physical expression of the game so beautiful. A player may be listed as having high APM... False, a players redundancy(ineffective actions / all actions * 100 % = (APM - EAPM) / APM * 100%) is a pretty good indicator of how clean someone plays. The Wol replays of flash and liquid sea had something crazy(in sc2 gears) of 180 eapm and ~25% redundancy. Those aren't numbers that the average joe can just obtain. EAPM is still an arbitrary reading. In eliminating what you'd call "redundant actions," you are also eliminating the vast majority of cycling, boxing, and maintenance actions. A number does not convey the unique mechanical signature of a player. It does not convey HOW (the means by which) Flash is able to play so precisely. It does not convey his multitask, or cycling abilities. It does not convey how he personally chooses to box and spread, his hotkey patterns, how fast his screen cycles... That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. It does not convey a player's personal mechanical identity. APM is only a general indicator.
Sc2gears eapm is anything but arbitary
|
On June 06 2013 11:18 doffe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 09:45 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 06 2013 09:42 Exarl25 wrote:
Not everyone views APM positively. Some say it doesn't mean anything, it's all spam, players just play fast to show off. If this thread gets enough replies you will probably see that perspective pop up. And I have also come across people who are not familiar with high level SC2 who hear about the whole APM thing and as a result just blow the game off as not a strategy game, but a "click fest" where strategy doesn't matter and it's just the guy with the fastest hands who wins.
Bringing up APM doesn't score points with everyone. It's a measurement that is very prone to being misunderstood. That's because a majority of the APM is worthless. It's idle APM. The only APM that matters if you even want to look at this terrible stat is spike apm in fights. No, you don't need 200 apm to build units and check your upgrades. I play with roughly 100 sometimes lower in mid masters. SC2 is a much more twitch/reaction during the fight game as compared to broodwar so you get extremely high spikes of apm which might mean something but apm over the game doesn't mean jack. well, stop playing protoss and you'll notice that sub 100apm isnt good enough for masters =)
and stop thinking apm has much to do with skill/winning. Zergs just spike from holding down a key for larvae.
|
On June 06 2013 11:32 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 10:52 Qwyn wrote:On June 06 2013 10:04 kill619 wrote:That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. APM as a number reading loses the personal identity which makes the physical expression of the game so beautiful. A player may be listed as having high APM... False, a players redundancy(ineffective actions / all actions * 100 % = (APM - EAPM) / APM * 100%) is a pretty good indicator of how clean someone plays. The Wol replays of flash and liquid sea had something crazy(in sc2 gears) of 180 eapm and ~25% redundancy. Those aren't numbers that the average joe can just obtain. EAPM is still an arbitrary reading. In eliminating what you'd call "redundant actions," you are also eliminating the vast majority of cycling, boxing, and maintenance actions. A number does not convey the unique mechanical signature of a player. It does not convey HOW (the means by which) Flash is able to play so precisely. It does not convey his multitask, or cycling abilities. It does not convey how he personally chooses to box and spread, his hotkey patterns, how fast his screen cycles... That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. It does not convey a player's personal mechanical identity. APM is only a general indicator. that's just a incorrect approach to measuring eapm then, of course you can capture relevant information from the data, skill isn't something ethereal that can't be reflected by numerical data. it is definitely possible to predict who is better than who from pure numerical data. it is done in professional sports -- it can be done with sc, it's just mostly a waste of time to do so. EAPM/APM is not by itself an amazing predictor of skill of course, but I would guess that it has decent positive correlation with how good the player is though.
I don't think I'm conveying what I'm trying to say very well, then. Someone may very well have 200 APM. But that reading tells you nothing about the INDIVIDUAL QUALITY of that 200 APM. Even an EPM reading (an arbitrary measure of redundancy) cannot account for the method behind an action, the individual's expression of motion...Among 10 different players, each with 200 APM,. each one is going to express (Nada called it painting a picture) their actions differently.
What I'm trying to say is that the number ignores the unique mechanical characteristics of the individual. What makes Jaedong's 400 APM so different from mine? It's how all the pieces fit together, his preciseness and his cycles, how he individually "paints his picture." The number can't convey that. Sure you can establish an arbitrary metric of "redundancy," (which depending on quality can actually be a very useful reading, don't get me wrong), but even that cannot show you the components of a player's play and how they synergize together.
Watching someone play is a thing of beauty. I think you have to look at it like expression of motion in a sport. Every player moves their mouse differently, draws boxes differently, has different macro cycles, levels of screen cycling, maintenance, etc. On paper, they all might read as having 200 APM with 10 percent redundancy. But in reality, each one of these examples expresses themselves in the game differently. Each one of their cycles and patterns are unique, and they fit together to achieve a number that might be "the same." But they very well won't be.
|
On June 06 2013 11:46 kill619 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 10:52 Qwyn wrote:On June 06 2013 10:04 kill619 wrote:That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. APM as a number reading loses the personal identity which makes the physical expression of the game so beautiful. A player may be listed as having high APM... False, a players redundancy(ineffective actions / all actions * 100 % = (APM - EAPM) / APM * 100%) is a pretty good indicator of how clean someone plays. The Wol replays of flash and liquid sea had something crazy(in sc2 gears) of 180 eapm and ~25% redundancy. Those aren't numbers that the average joe can just obtain. EAPM is still an arbitrary reading. In eliminating what you'd call "redundant actions," you are also eliminating the vast majority of cycling, boxing, and maintenance actions. A number does not convey the unique mechanical signature of a player. It does not convey HOW (the means by which) Flash is able to play so precisely. It does not convey his multitask, or cycling abilities. It does not convey how he personally chooses to box and spread, his hotkey patterns, how fast his screen cycles... That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. It does not convey a player's personal mechanical identity. APM is only a general indicator. Sc2gears eapm is anything but arbitary
I think you should just read my post above. I understand the logic behind the calculations SC2Gears uses. I would say that the closest to accurate reading would be their XAPM system, because it accepts almost all keyboard inputs. But you're missing the point of what I am trying to say and are getting caught up in debate about a system, rather than an understanding and appreciation of the individuality of the player and what makes his/her mechanical expression unique.
|
On June 06 2013 11:58 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 11:32 dreamsmasher wrote:On June 06 2013 10:52 Qwyn wrote:On June 06 2013 10:04 kill619 wrote:That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. APM as a number reading loses the personal identity which makes the physical expression of the game so beautiful. A player may be listed as having high APM... False, a players redundancy(ineffective actions / all actions * 100 % = (APM - EAPM) / APM * 100%) is a pretty good indicator of how clean someone plays. The Wol replays of flash and liquid sea had something crazy(in sc2 gears) of 180 eapm and ~25% redundancy. Those aren't numbers that the average joe can just obtain. EAPM is still an arbitrary reading. In eliminating what you'd call "redundant actions," you are also eliminating the vast majority of cycling, boxing, and maintenance actions. A number does not convey the unique mechanical signature of a player. It does not convey HOW (the means by which) Flash is able to play so precisely. It does not convey his multitask, or cycling abilities. It does not convey how he personally chooses to box and spread, his hotkey patterns, how fast his screen cycles... That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. It does not convey a player's personal mechanical identity. APM is only a general indicator. that's just a incorrect approach to measuring eapm then, of course you can capture relevant information from the data, skill isn't something ethereal that can't be reflected by numerical data. it is definitely possible to predict who is better than who from pure numerical data. it is done in professional sports -- it can be done with sc, it's just mostly a waste of time to do so. EAPM/APM is not by itself an amazing predictor of skill of course, but I would guess that it has decent positive correlation with how good the player is though. I don't think I'm conveying what I'm trying to say very well, then. Someone may very well have 200 APM. But that reading tells you nothing about the INDIVIDUAL QUALITY of that 200 APM. Even an EPM reading (an arbitrary measure of redundancy) cannot account for the method behind an action, the individual's expression of motion...Among 10 different players, each with 200 APM,. each one is going to express (Nada called it painting a picture) their actions differently. What I'm trying to say is that the number ignores the unique mechanical characteristics of the individual. What makes Jaedong's 400 APM so different from mine? It's how all the pieces fit together, his preciseness and his cycles, how he individually "paints his picture." The number can't convey that. Sure you can establish an arbitrary metric of "redundancy," (which depending on quality can actually be a very useful reading, don't get me wrong), but even that cannot show you the components of a player's play and how they synergize together. Watching someone play is a thing of beauty. I think you have to look at it like expression of motion in a sport. Every player moves their mouse differently, draws boxes differently, has different macro cycles, levels of screen cycling, maintenance, etc. On paper, they all might read as having 200 APM with 10 percent redundancy. But in reality, each one of these examples expresses themselves in the game differently. Each one of their cycles and patterns are unique, and they fit together to achieve a number that might be "the same." But they very well won't be.
all of that is irrelevant to skill though. skill is a combination of multiple variables which should serve as a predictor for win% against x set of players. otherwise what is the point of having 'skill'. you cannot possible be more 'skilled' than someone else if you lose more compared to them over a decently sized group of games against similarly 'skilled' opponents.
two people may do things in different ways, but if they achieve the same win % against a similar pool of players, then each person's own way of doing things is equally effective.
what you describe is more like a subjective expression of how someone does something (style), or how they think about things, which of course can be equally interesting/notable, but lets not confuse that with skill. style can very well exist within this framework, a game with incomplete information naturally lends itself to nonunique solutions, so a solution set (x,y,z) could each represent a different 'style'.
|
Totally agree with OP. Sure, APM does not equal skill - but it's damn cool to see anyways. Casters ought to bring it up more often.
Now if blizzard would just stop fucking with sc2 APM and just make it the same as sc1/wc3...
|
Haha.. this reminds me. I actually have a huge, and pretty awesome post on this topic that has just been sitting around waiting to be revised into a final draft :X Maybe this will help me to find the motivation 
|
For 99% of us APM is a waste of time to think about. Im a NA and SEA master aged 38, my APM is woeful. But I get by simply on superior strategy and unique playing style. Most people copy the pro style of play - how predictable. Eg most terrans like 1raxFE - i prefer a 1/1/1 assault to punish such greedy terrans. Its not rocket science...
|
On June 06 2013 12:25 MadProbe wrote:
Totally agree with OP. Sure, APM does not equal skill - but it's damn cool to see anyways. Casters ought to bring it up more often.
Now if blizzard would just stop fucking with sc2 APM and just make it the same as sc1/wc3...
Yeah, I agree that despite it not really indicating the better player it'd be a cool thing to show. I don't even know why Blizz can't make it at least as accurate as its predecessors.
|
Bisutopia19270 Posts
On June 06 2013 12:36 BioTech wrote:
For 99% of us APM is a waste of time to think about. Im a NA and SEA master aged 38, my APM is woeful. But I get by simply on superior strategy and unique playing style. Most people copy the pro style of play - how predictable. Eg most terrans like 1raxFE - i prefer a 1/1/1 assault to punish such greedy terrans. Its not rocket science...
So you can speak for 99% of us? I happen to think APM is a great thing to think about. But I guess I'm in the very narrow 1% according to you. -_-
|
On June 06 2013 13:18 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 12:36 BioTech wrote:
For 99% of us APM is a waste of time to think about. Im a NA and SEA master aged 38, my APM is woeful. But I get by simply on superior strategy and unique playing style. Most people copy the pro style of play - how predictable. Eg most terrans like 1raxFE - i prefer a 1/1/1 assault to punish such greedy terrans. Its not rocket science... So you can speak for 99% of us? I happen to think APM is a great thing to think about. But I guess I'm in the very narrow 1% according to you. -_-
Yes BisuDagger, WE are the 1%!
|
not a thread about what APM is, how it works or even if the player with the highest APM will win
It's simply saying APM is a measurement of doing something that can be compared. It's also a measurement (at its most basic) that a StarCarft noob would be able to relate too. Therefore as a part of the SC2 telecast its a good thing to include as people from all walks of life can relate to it. Some new to starcraft wont care about the ins and outs of the measurement or generation of APM EAPM etc - all they would care about it is it people doing a lot of things very quickly compared to what they can do.
|
As someone else said, you can only judge of a player's speed when you look at his FPVOD directly (with mouse cursor and all). Even EAPM doesn't work that well to give you an idea, but it's better than nothing.
I think bringing back some FPVOD cam switches at some point in the games would be cool
|
On June 06 2013 12:13 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 11:58 Qwyn wrote:On June 06 2013 11:32 dreamsmasher wrote:On June 06 2013 10:52 Qwyn wrote:On June 06 2013 10:04 kill619 wrote:That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. APM as a number reading loses the personal identity which makes the physical expression of the game so beautiful. A player may be listed as having high APM... False, a players redundancy(ineffective actions / all actions * 100 % = (APM - EAPM) / APM * 100%) is a pretty good indicator of how clean someone plays. The Wol replays of flash and liquid sea had something crazy(in sc2 gears) of 180 eapm and ~25% redundancy. Those aren't numbers that the average joe can just obtain. EAPM is still an arbitrary reading. In eliminating what you'd call "redundant actions," you are also eliminating the vast majority of cycling, boxing, and maintenance actions. A number does not convey the unique mechanical signature of a player. It does not convey HOW (the means by which) Flash is able to play so precisely. It does not convey his multitask, or cycling abilities. It does not convey how he personally chooses to box and spread, his hotkey patterns, how fast his screen cycles... That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. It does not convey a player's personal mechanical identity. APM is only a general indicator. that's just a incorrect approach to measuring eapm then, of course you can capture relevant information from the data, skill isn't something ethereal that can't be reflected by numerical data. it is definitely possible to predict who is better than who from pure numerical data. it is done in professional sports -- it can be done with sc, it's just mostly a waste of time to do so. EAPM/APM is not by itself an amazing predictor of skill of course, but I would guess that it has decent positive correlation with how good the player is though. I don't think I'm conveying what I'm trying to say very well, then. Someone may very well have 200 APM. But that reading tells you nothing about the INDIVIDUAL QUALITY of that 200 APM. Even an EPM reading (an arbitrary measure of redundancy) cannot account for the method behind an action, the individual's expression of motion...Among 10 different players, each with 200 APM,. each one is going to express (Nada called it painting a picture) their actions differently. What I'm trying to say is that the number ignores the unique mechanical characteristics of the individual. What makes Jaedong's 400 APM so different from mine? It's how all the pieces fit together, his preciseness and his cycles, how he individually "paints his picture." The number can't convey that. Sure you can establish an arbitrary metric of "redundancy," (which depending on quality can actually be a very useful reading, don't get me wrong), but even that cannot show you the components of a player's play and how they synergize together. Watching someone play is a thing of beauty. I think you have to look at it like expression of motion in a sport. Every player moves their mouse differently, draws boxes differently, has different macro cycles, levels of screen cycling, maintenance, etc. On paper, they all might read as having 200 APM with 10 percent redundancy. But in reality, each one of these examples expresses themselves in the game differently. Each one of their cycles and patterns are unique, and they fit together to achieve a number that might be "the same." But they very well won't be. all of that is irrelevant to skill though. skill is a combination of multiple variables which should serve as a predictor for win% against x set of players. otherwise what is the point of having 'skill'. you cannot possible be more 'skilled' than someone else if you lose more compared to them over a decently sized group of games against similarly 'skilled' opponents. two people may do things in different ways, but if they achieve the same win % against a similar pool of players, then each person's own way of doing things is equally effective. what you describe is more like a subjective expression of how someone does something (style), or how they think about things, which of course can be equally interesting/notable, but lets not confuse that with skill. style can very well exist within this framework, a game with incomplete information naturally lends itself to nonunique solutions, so a solution set (x,y,z) could each represent a different 'style'.
It's not a subjective expression of how someone does something. It's how someone does something. Flash happens to do that something better than most players on Earth. Jaedong happens to do that something more efficiently than most players on Earth.
I am trying to cultivate an appreciation of mechanics in line with what the OP said. It's an under-observed and under-valued aspect of the game that is just as important as "strategy," or "decision making." And it has everything to do with skill. I know my rhetoric seems to suggest a "style," or "aesthetic" more than a skill component, but mechanics have everything to do with the skill level of a player. I was just trying to paint the whole mechanical component of the game as a thing of beauty. Something that you can analyze and appreciate at many levels of competition.
Let me lay it out again.
I have 400 APM. Jaedong has 400 APM.
Jaedong is more efficient than me. His cycles are leaner, and more rapid than mine. We still have the same "concrete" number of actions on the APM/EPM tab. But he is faster and more efficient, manages and expresses himself better than me. He is more skillful than me.
It's shown in his "mechanical signature," too. The unique way he inputs commands into the game happens to be more efficient in every regard than me. But given two players of even "statistical" skill, within the realm of mechanics, one may have more efficient macro/micro cycles, but the other may have more efficient multi-tasking/build orders...The APM tab reads the same for both of them, but both of their cycles are optimized in a unique way with an aptitude for different things.
I think if there is one thing that you should take away from what I'm saying it's that mechanics are deep and should be appreciated on a greater level. You may have your own opinion regarding APM and shit but I think everyone should at least try to appreciate the largest fundamental component of the game, lol.
|
Qwyn is perfectly right. And Innovation is pretty much proof that "mechanically strong" can be what defines you as a player even at the very top. He's obviously doing something better/faster/etc. than other Terrans (except Flash himself :D), we know it's not really decision making, game sense, creativity and whatnot. And you probably can't measure it by APM count alone, since at this level pretty much everyone is at 250-300-ish APM (in-game). So it has to be deeper than that.
|
The thread isn't about how useful APM is, it's about how outsiders can appreciate the level of progamer by having some indicator
I do agree that there should be something that can let the outsiders know how great a player is, some sort of indicator because looking at a tournament game as a spectator, they can only see a few drops and some stutterstep micro which aren't actually that hard to do if you only micro
but if apm is brought in, showing that the player isn't just playing MOBA, they don't just micro but also macro-ing hard and show how the player is executing a gameplan with both micro and macro, that will makes outside appreciate the skill a lot more.
first person view doesn't work very well most often because the spectator don't understand what's going on and often are confused with what's going on with the screen, some even find it dizzy to watch.
APM might not be perfect but it is one useful tool.
|
On June 06 2013 09:36 FatkiddsLag wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 09:33 Mortal wrote:What exactly is the point of this thread? It doesn't sound like you're breeding discussion, more of just trying to make another "eSports as a real sport?" thread. APM in and of itself doesn't matter unless it's useful (see innovation). also, this If Starcraft is going to grab an audience outside the gaming world it needs something that regular people can compare to. APM should be that bridge. is not correct at all. Lastshadow mentioned on Artosis' stream that in pro houses they used to measure speed in screens per minute. Meaning whenever a player shifts the screen. He said that Flash is so good because his screens per minute was really high compared to other gamers.
Are you talking about Brood War or SC2? Big difference. You don't need lots of screen shifts in SC2.
|
I think its a idea that could be entertained but (and this is prob off point) Polt won Gsl with a low Apm so i don't think its the best measure or draw card but that is just me.
|
On June 06 2013 14:35 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 09:36 FatkiddsLag wrote:On June 06 2013 09:33 Mortal wrote:What exactly is the point of this thread? It doesn't sound like you're breeding discussion, more of just trying to make another "eSports as a real sport?" thread. APM in and of itself doesn't matter unless it's useful (see innovation). also, this If Starcraft is going to grab an audience outside the gaming world it needs something that regular people can compare to. APM should be that bridge. is not correct at all. Lastshadow mentioned on Artosis' stream that in pro houses they used to measure speed in screens per minute. Meaning whenever a player shifts the screen. He said that Flash is so good because his screens per minute was really high compared to other gamers. Are you talking about Brood War or SC2? Big difference. You don't need lots of screen shifts in SC2.
I believe that he was referring to BW. This is also a point that I feel was over looked just because Lastshadow said it. Artosis has respect for his game/practice knowledge so others should too. But you do want to screen shift is SC2 as well.
|
On June 06 2013 14:24 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 12:13 dreamsmasher wrote:On June 06 2013 11:58 Qwyn wrote:On June 06 2013 11:32 dreamsmasher wrote:On June 06 2013 10:52 Qwyn wrote:On June 06 2013 10:04 kill619 wrote:That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. APM as a number reading loses the personal identity which makes the physical expression of the game so beautiful. A player may be listed as having high APM... False, a players redundancy(ineffective actions / all actions * 100 % = (APM - EAPM) / APM * 100%) is a pretty good indicator of how clean someone plays. The Wol replays of flash and liquid sea had something crazy(in sc2 gears) of 180 eapm and ~25% redundancy. Those aren't numbers that the average joe can just obtain. EAPM is still an arbitrary reading. In eliminating what you'd call "redundant actions," you are also eliminating the vast majority of cycling, boxing, and maintenance actions. A number does not convey the unique mechanical signature of a player. It does not convey HOW (the means by which) Flash is able to play so precisely. It does not convey his multitask, or cycling abilities. It does not convey how he personally chooses to box and spread, his hotkey patterns, how fast his screen cycles... That speed and beauty is not something that can be conveyed with a number. It does not convey a player's personal mechanical identity. APM is only a general indicator. that's just a incorrect approach to measuring eapm then, of course you can capture relevant information from the data, skill isn't something ethereal that can't be reflected by numerical data. it is definitely possible to predict who is better than who from pure numerical data. it is done in professional sports -- it can be done with sc, it's just mostly a waste of time to do so. EAPM/APM is not by itself an amazing predictor of skill of course, but I would guess that it has decent positive correlation with how good the player is though. I don't think I'm conveying what I'm trying to say very well, then. Someone may very well have 200 APM. But that reading tells you nothing about the INDIVIDUAL QUALITY of that 200 APM. Even an EPM reading (an arbitrary measure of redundancy) cannot account for the method behind an action, the individual's expression of motion...Among 10 different players, each with 200 APM,. each one is going to express (Nada called it painting a picture) their actions differently. What I'm trying to say is that the number ignores the unique mechanical characteristics of the individual. What makes Jaedong's 400 APM so different from mine? It's how all the pieces fit together, his preciseness and his cycles, how he individually "paints his picture." The number can't convey that. Sure you can establish an arbitrary metric of "redundancy," (which depending on quality can actually be a very useful reading, don't get me wrong), but even that cannot show you the components of a player's play and how they synergize together. Watching someone play is a thing of beauty. I think you have to look at it like expression of motion in a sport. Every player moves their mouse differently, draws boxes differently, has different macro cycles, levels of screen cycling, maintenance, etc. On paper, they all might read as having 200 APM with 10 percent redundancy. But in reality, each one of these examples expresses themselves in the game differently. Each one of their cycles and patterns are unique, and they fit together to achieve a number that might be "the same." But they very well won't be. all of that is irrelevant to skill though. skill is a combination of multiple variables which should serve as a predictor for win% against x set of players. otherwise what is the point of having 'skill'. you cannot possible be more 'skilled' than someone else if you lose more compared to them over a decently sized group of games against similarly 'skilled' opponents. two people may do things in different ways, but if they achieve the same win % against a similar pool of players, then each person's own way of doing things is equally effective. what you describe is more like a subjective expression of how someone does something (style), or how they think about things, which of course can be equally interesting/notable, but lets not confuse that with skill. style can very well exist within this framework, a game with incomplete information naturally lends itself to nonunique solutions, so a solution set (x,y,z) could each represent a different 'style'. It's not a subjective expression of how someone does something. It's how someone does something. Flash happens to do that something better than most players on Earth. Jaedong happens to do that something more efficiently than most players on Earth. I am trying to cultivate an appreciation of mechanics in line with what the OP said. It's an under-observed and under-valued aspect of the game that is just as important as "strategy," or "decision making." And it has everything to do with skill. I know my rhetoric seems to suggest a "style," or "aesthetic" more than a skill component, but mechanics have everything to do with the skill level of a player. I was just trying to paint the whole mechanical component of the game as a thing of beauty. Something that you can analyze and appreciate at many levels of competition. Let me lay it out again. I have 400 APM. Jaedong has 400 APM. Jaedong is more efficient than me. His cycles are leaner, and more rapid than mine. We still have the same "concrete" number of actions on the APM/EPM tab. But he is faster and more efficient, manages and expresses himself better than me. He is more skillful than me. It's shown in his "mechanical signature," too. The unique way he inputs commands into the game happens to be more efficient in every regard than me. But given two players of even "statistical" skill, within the realm of mechanics, one may have more efficient macro/micro cycles, but the other may have more efficient multi-tasking/build orders...The APM tab reads the same for both of them, but both of their cycles are optimized in a unique way with an aptitude for different things. I think if there is one thing that you should take away from what I'm saying it's that mechanics are deep and should be appreciated on a greater level. You may have your own opinion regarding APM and shit but I think everyone should at least try to appreciate the largest fundamental component of the game, lol.
Quality posts on mechanics, you are absolutely right
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
