|
|
|
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...
lol you sound like Ruff
who realistically is just not too good
|
On June 06 2013 14:00 ZenithM wrote: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 
That would be really great for tournaments, but I wish SO SO SO badly you could see the mouse. That and the slow camera panning instead of jumping really wrecks it and doesn't give an accurate portrayal. Actually, is there an option that allows the camera to jump around instead of slow pan when in FP mode? I'll have to go check that now.
|
elfi might have lowest apm of all progamers, still he is in premier league
|
I dont understans the point of this article. Are you saying apm is biggest factor in bringing people towards sc?
|
On June 06 2013 09:45 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Injecting properly, keeping map awareness, spreading creep as fast as possible, droning up, getting new tech buildings and expansions and spreading overlords requires at least 200 APM.
a creep tumor becomes active every 15 seconds. Imagine spreading creep in 3 different directions.. that's spreading creep every 5 IN-game seconds.
Since it's a faster speed, a tumor has a reset time of 15*72.5% = 10.875
So every 10.875 seconds, you can spawn new creep, and imagine going to 3 different locations  .
Creep spawn = 15*72.5% = every 11 seconds
Injects (per hatch) = 45*72.5% = every 32 seconds
map control -> constantly
Producing drones/army -> constantly, every 15*72.5% = 11 seconds, a new larvae pops, per base.
Getting upgrades/tech buildings -> you name it
Checking minimap -> a lot
And you're saying to play optimally, you don't have to play fast, really? there's a reason you're low masters, bro.
On June 06 2013 11:47 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 11:18 doffe wrote: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.
and protoss doesn't? Holding down a key for warpins or forcefields? Oh, okay.
|
The discussion of mechanics rarely happens in games. Casters mostly just describe what is happening on stream. There are times when better players, such as Koreans, do multi pronged harassment and they may trade inefficiently in terms of units yet they end up on top. The emphasis is always on build orders and damage and supply.
Apm may not be perfectly correlated with performance but I do remember opening MLG replays in SC2 Gears and the Koreans stuck out like a sore thumb. Stephano has a reputation for mediocre mechanics but he is actually both fast and efficient.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On June 06 2013 16:14 kaluro 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. Injecting properly, keeping map awareness, spreading creep as fast as possible, droning up, getting new tech buildings and expansions and spreading overlords requires at least 200 APM. a creep tumor becomes active every 15 seconds. Imagine spreading creep in 3 different directions.. that's spreading creep every 5 IN-game seconds. Since it's a faster speed, a tumor has a reset time of 15*72.5% = 10.875 So every 10.875 seconds, you can spawn new creep, and imagine going to 3 different locations . Creep spawn = 15*72.5% = every 11 seconds Injects (per hatch) = 45*72.5% = every 32 seconds map control -> constantly Producing drones/army -> constantly, every 15*72.5% = 11 seconds, a new larvae pops, per base. Getting upgrades/tech buildings -> you name it Checking minimap -> a lot And you're saying to play optimally, you don't have to play fast, really? there's a reason you're low masters, bro. Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 11:47 Scarecrow wrote:On June 06 2013 11:18 doffe wrote: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. and protoss doesn't? Holding down a key for warpins or forcefields? Oh, okay.
No they don't actually
Also I disagree with most things said. My APM is equal to Jaedong's during the first few actions in the game. But Jaedong's already better than me even there. APM =|= skill and we should not lead people to think it is.
If there was something like a small visual window to implement for observers that doesn't either block the whole screen or is never paid attention to because it's small and only numbers then yeah, why not show it sometimes. But I don't think it's important and should be focused on as much as the strategic, intellectual aspect of the game.
|
Some people in this thread doesn't seem to under the OP's post nor do they understand the meaning of APM.
First off, APM is NOT everything, and it was never supposed to represent everything. The arguments in this thread shouldn't even be about whether APM = skill. The OP even said "While APM isn't a true measure of skill..."
What the OP simply argued for, is that APM is a useful metric in terms of measuring the physical ability of a SC2 player and thus, it can be used to capture the attention of someone not familiar with the specific gameplay of SC2 (similar to speed gun measurements in baseball/tennis etc).
People need to also stop pulling out APM numbers out of the blue. Does anyone even realize what 400 APM, based on SC2 gametime, means? I guarantee that Jaedong does not play at 400 SC2 time APM.
Here's two replays of Flash vs Life from the MLG exhibition match http://kr.battle.net/sc2/ko/blog/9868376/
You'll see that they both have around 200-250 APM (SC2 time). Flash is not a slow player by all means, he's one of the fastest Terrans I've seen. This misconception of progamer APM must be put to an end. Yes, APM is not everything, but progamers consistently have higher APM than amateurs.
|
Just because APM isn't a definitive measure of skill doesn't mean it can't be a powerful metric.
Take 40 yard dash times in football, for a long time the Oakland Raiders heavily prioritized 40 times in their drafts and as a result they had an insanely fast yet ineffective team. That doesn't mean 40 yard dash times aren't extremely important in analyzing a pro football player, it just means that it isn't everything.
|
APM is a stupid metric. You can have 400 APM and be crusing in bronze league because you are just bad at the game but really good at spamming stuff.
The main problem with sc2 and a larger audience is what make sc2 so great, its the degree of complexity. Just like sports, in order to enjoy watching it, you have to understand it, at least the base of it. Most sport its like : take this ball and put it in your opponent goal. In starcraft its like, this proxy 2 rax need to do lots of damage otherwise that player will be way behind.
|
On June 06 2013 16:14 kaluro wrote:
and protoss doesn't? Holding down a key for warpins or forcefields? Oh, okay.
They at least have to click on the ground if you look at it honestly
|
On June 06 2013 11:09 BisuDagger wrote:I'm curious how you can find APM so important when your name clearly has it out for  JulyZerg, who is famously known for his high APM.
This is the best comment in the entire thread.
|
On June 06 2013 16:14 kaluro 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. Injecting properly, keeping map awareness, spreading creep as fast as possible, droning up, getting new tech buildings and expansions and spreading overlords requires at least 200 APM. a creep tumor becomes active every 15 seconds. Imagine spreading creep in 3 different directions.. that's spreading creep every 5 IN-game seconds. Since it's a faster speed, a tumor has a reset time of 15*72.5% = 10.875 So every 10.875 seconds, you can spawn new creep, and imagine going to 3 different locations . Creep spawn = 15*72.5% = every 11 seconds Injects (per hatch) = 45*72.5% = every 32 seconds map control -> constantly Producing drones/army -> constantly, every 15*72.5% = 11 seconds, a new larvae pops, per base. Getting upgrades/tech buildings -> you name it Checking minimap -> a lot And you're saying to play optimally, you don't have to play fast, really? there's a reason you're low masters, bro. Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 11:47 Scarecrow wrote:On June 06 2013 11:18 doffe wrote: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. and protoss doesn't? Holding down a key for warpins or forcefields? Oh, okay.
this is a laffable statement. do you not know how P works or do you just throw shit at any race you don't like for arbitrary reasons? ff's barely make your apm go up (in fact, some players will slow down slightly to get better ff's) and warping in should be as simple as "S, click-x-8." whoa that's a lot of spam!
|
On June 06 2013 15:10 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 14:24 Qwyn wrote: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
he's more skillful than you because he's winning against opponents better than you on a more consistent basis. what i'm saying is that APM is just part of a skillset (it's not a complete picture), there are probably other metrics that can be developed if people actually spent time on it. in fact APM can probably be further broken down.
i'm defining skill is WHATEVER set of variables that are highly predictive of success, not just APM or EPM, this implies other metrics not yet defined, etc... my post is theoretical, i'm saying that it is silly to assume that math cannot touch or capture the essence of 'skill'.
i actually don't think your post contadicts mine that much at all. there is room for subjectivity in statistics.
|
On June 06 2013 15:58 Kyuhyuck wrote:
I dont understans the point of this article. Are you saying apm is biggest factor in bringing people towards sc?
no just a quick way (gimmick) that sucks people into the game, something visceral that someone with no knowledge of the game can grasp.
very similar to watching a basketball player dunk from the free throw line, or some other incredible feat in sports etc...
these things aren't by themselves indicative of skill (for example there are plenty of street ballers who can probably dunk just as good etc...), but it is something that is still incredible to watch and gets people into the game.
nothing wrong with that, its a marketing thing.
|
On June 06 2013 09:39 Mortal 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. Using anything Lastshadow says as a metric instantly de-legitimizes whatever it is. Screens per minute? I play pretty goddamn fast, but I'm well aware I'm absolute garbage. If all we can do is flap our gums about APM to get SC2 more viewers to identify with it, we have more problems than viewer counts (which aren't a problem btw).
so if you're "absolute garbage" then what gives you the authority to say that something is bullshit just because lastshadow said it? sure, ls might be a bit big-headed sometimes but hes still a very smart and talented player.
|
i like to think of apm as how fast you can run/high you can jump in basketball
its not everything but at the same time it IS everything
|
On June 07 2013 11:29 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 15:10 FallDownMarigold wrote:On June 06 2013 14:24 Qwyn wrote: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 he's more skillful than you because he's winning against opponents better than you on a more consistent basis. what i'm saying is that APM is just part of a skillset (it's not a complete picture), there are probably other metrics that can be developed if people actually spent time on it. in fact APM can probably be further broken down. i'm defining skill is WHATEVER set of variables that are highly predictive of success, not just APM or EPM, this implies other metrics not yet defined, etc... my post is theoretical, i'm saying that it is silly to assume that math cannot touch or capture the essence of 'skill'. i actually don't think your post contadicts mine that much at all. there is room for subjectivity in statistics.
Er, I think you meant to reply to Qwyn heh. In any case... I'll chime in:
he's more skillful than you because he's winning against opponents better than you on a more consistent basis.
I think it makes more sense to reverse that logic: He's winning against opponents better than me on a more consistent basis because his skill is better than my skill. His skill is not perfectly quantifiable, but it is certainly derived from extreme and artful mastery over fundamental aspects of the game. Qwyn very rightly highlights mechanics being one of these core components of playing the game. To return to that logic, because his mechanics among other aspects of playing the game are superior to mine, he is more skillful and thus he is able to beat better players than I am able to beat.
I'm sure you'd agree with that. To the other stuff you wrote, perhaps some model could closely approximate 'skill'. But to *perfectly* describe it via math wouldn't seem possible provided an understanding of what Qwyn was saying.
|
I think flashing APM, amongst other stats during a game, make the match more interesting. It gives the audience something to digest while also watching the game play. But if SC2 is going to increase it's viewership I think it has to do something beyond just having the casters talking during game play. Flashing the player's reactions or hand movements during game play, showing audience reactions during pivotal moments, doing a picture in picture replay of an exciting play during lulls in gameplay, etc. The aforementioned formula is used effectively in every broadcasted sports venue. SC2 broadcasters should try to emulate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
