|
High speed cameras pointed at pro players hands. That is the point of the OP.
A lot of people compare SC2 to basketball etc. The thing is, SC2 is more comparable to combat sports like boxing and mixed martial arts. You make your opponent quit, disable them or knock them out --not out-score them on points by doing an epic move to get that point or goal. Looking at SC2 this way will let you see how important APM is.
Like most combat sports, SC2 needs both speed (APM) and technique (Accuracy, Strategy, Mind-Gaming and Execution).
|
On June 07 2013 11:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 11:29 dreamsmasher wrote: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: Show nested quote +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.
yes it is implied that it is not perfect. game of imperfect information means that the games aren't perfectly deterministic.
since skill is an abstract concept, i think it makes much more sense to think about it inferentially, and since the only way to 'check' your hypothesis of 'who is more skilled?' is to look at win rates against a set of players, it makes much more sense to think about it he way I do.
otherwise it just becomes an argument of 'well this one thing is harder for me to do, thus, SKILL!!", which is what most people end up doing.
|
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.
I guess we're just looking at two different things. You're looking at skill overall, I'm just saying that mechanics, a very large component of player skill, aren't very well represented by the APM/EPM tab and that a lot of the components of a strong mechanical player aren't conveyed in the reading.
Math can convey and capture the essence of skill for sure. I'm in no way saying that the readings do not convey a general set of information. I'm just saying that at the highest level mechanics are too complicated to be simply expressed with an APM reading.
I think you might be saying that too, we're just circling around a common view.
FPVs for all! Come on OSL, show us some screen captures for PL!
|
On June 06 2013 15:18 ROOTFayth 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... lol you sound like Ruff who realistically is just not too good
Says the guy who losses at mlg to my style and tournaments. Thanks bud.
|
Most of the times the APM display toggle is useless because the caster uses it in the early game when there's nothing to do except spamming useless actions. I almost never seen it just before/during/after a big fight.
Maybe it's taking too much space in the UI and the APM doesn't mater much anyway...
|
Northern Ireland25364 Posts
Shameless plug of an old thread
For me the importance of APM, hand cams and all that is because gaming is a spectacle that is generally viewed, unlike other sports, without the direct input of the competitors being visible. The uninitiated don't find it impressive, because they aren't seeing the actual commands and directions that the players are inputting into the game.
Micro is not impressive to a non-gamer, because they don't get how the player is doing it, if that makes sense. In 'real' sports you don't have this issue, because the actions that determine outcomes are all visible and in plain sight
|
....but..... apm is a lie! 
|
On June 17 2013 11:10 Wombat_NI wrote:Shameless plug of an old threadFor me the importance of APM, hand cams and all that is because gaming is a spectacle that is generally viewed, unlike other sports, without the direct input of the competitors being visible. The uninitiated don't find it impressive, because they aren't seeing the actual commands and directions that the players are inputting into the game. Micro is not impressive to a non-gamer, because they don't get how the player is doing it, if that makes sense. In 'real' sports you don't have this issue, because the actions that determine outcomes are all visible and in plain sight
I find that the better you get the higher your APM.
However, I don't find that the reverse is true. The higher your APM does not correlate with you yourself getting better.
This is because the speed that needs to increase is not the actions on the screen, but the actions off the screen.
I love the idea of seeing the player's hands and body throughout a game. The sudden jump in ingame APM during high pitch battles.
I remember a Puzzle vs Sheth match on GSL where Puzzle's blink micro made his APM shoot up to 400 (or was it 800) and it was amazing because the sudden spike in actions translated to actions on the screen (perfect blinks).
I am totally cool with trying to find more ways to see a players actions instead of the game's actions.
|
Northern Ireland25364 Posts
On June 17 2013 12:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 11:10 Wombat_NI wrote:Shameless plug of an old threadFor me the importance of APM, hand cams and all that is because gaming is a spectacle that is generally viewed, unlike other sports, without the direct input of the competitors being visible. The uninitiated don't find it impressive, because they aren't seeing the actual commands and directions that the players are inputting into the game. Micro is not impressive to a non-gamer, because they don't get how the player is doing it, if that makes sense. In 'real' sports you don't have this issue, because the actions that determine outcomes are all visible and in plain sight I find that the better you get the higher your APM. However, I don't find that the reverse is true. The higher your APM does not correlate with you yourself getting better. This is because the speed that needs to increase is not the actions on the screen, but the actions off the screen. I love the idea of seeing the player's hands and body throughout a game. The sudden jump in ingame APM during high pitch battles. I remember a Puzzle vs Sheth match on GSL where Puzzle's blink micro made his APM shoot up to 400 (or was it 800) and it was amazing because the sudden spike in actions translated to actions on the screen (perfect blinks). I am totally cool with trying to find more ways to see a players actions instead of the game's actions.
400apm while blinking is close to unbelievable to me, I can hit half that, if even and if I do I think I'm playing at my best. Puzzle has always been a good example of Protoss mechanical chops not scaling all that well and being visually impressive, iirc he plays at a good 270 APM, but to the observer cam and hell to many even on here he's just a 'solid' Protoss.
There are totally good times to do such cuts as well, the opening 7/8 minutes of games has ample deadair that casters can sleepwalk through given how relatively stable openers have become.
Speaking of observer cam, we need more FPVs. I recall at the WCS Season final one of the streams cut to Innovation's FPV for a bit,
There's a lot of subtleties with mechanical efficiency, I find it fascinating. Had our annual, only real biggish SC LAN that we have last year. Literally every person hotkeys differently, and more intriguingly to me, everybody's hand position, wrist angles etc are all different. I mean that's something that a hardcore SC nerd probably finds interesting and is on their own in holding that view, but the uninitiated always find the handspeed impressive if nothing else in my experience.
|
On June 06 2013 09:59 hp.Shell wrote:
I remember back when BW was in proleague, almost every match the screen would switch over to ten or so seconds of each player's FPV. Before other FPVODs and snipealot, it was really spectacular to see. Little things like changing to ally/enemy colors (rather than default random ones) really left an impression on me.
The better the player is, the more appreciation they will have for the cast, even if it isn't FPV. The viewer has more and more knowledge of the game. So instead of thinking "oh man that was a really great engagement" he thinks "wow, look at where he placed his second supply depot!" "check out the two-tank split!" "how can he possibly have this supply at 3minutes" etc.
The casual viewer has none of this insight, so the major thing that will bring new viewers to the scene is not the APM, but how spectacular the particular game is that they see for the first time. People typically watch Boxer vs Yellow finals to get a feel for BW. There should be a standard game like that for SC2 that we can show people.
What's mentioned in this about the FP pov is where you really connect people during a broadcast. Sure if you are explaining the skill in words to a person without the aid of a picture explaining APM is useful. During a broadcast however showing the players pov and showing the live shot of their hands flying on the keyboard like a piano player really gets the point across a lot better then showing APM during the broadcast.
|
Without proper context, APM means nothing.
And APM =/= skill.
|
Northern Ireland25364 Posts
It means something, as many of the posts above have pointed out. As a guy who looks to introduce people to SC2, ideally to play with me or to even just watch and share in the spectacle, the fucking hook is the handspeed. THAT is what gets people to go 'wow, this game looks intense', and even if they don't end up being E-sport fanatics, there is still a base appreciation of that.
There's a metric fuckton of subtlety behind that in terms of SC2 as a competitive activity, but in my anecdotal experiences it is the mechanical/speed side of things that really helps shatter the archetypal, negative images that pro gaming have among many.
APM =/= skill no, but people trash the importance of high APM far too much. If I have to read another 'Oh I have low APM but I use innovative strategies' I will puke. Most of the times 'innovative strategy' means instead of copying the popular builds, you go all SC2 hipster and copy lesser known pro builds, and execute them worse than the people who came up with them, because they can't perform as many actions as quickly.
For those of you who do come up with cool builds and styles on your own, or have low APM that wasn't a generalised bash btw!
I find the same attitude abounds for those of us who are musicians as well. You don't need to play fast, or technically well to make great music that can speak to people. However, there are some forms of music that you can't play without some chops, and having every other Youtube video being spammed 'Speed =/= emotion' and other variants is fucking obnoxious. Just small-minded people who can't do something, and then subsequently claim it isn't something worth doing.
|
I am blown away that you actually think that 400 apm means 400 conscious actions per minute. You realize some of that is spam?
|
On June 17 2013 13:46 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 12:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 17 2013 11:10 Wombat_NI wrote:Shameless plug of an old threadFor me the importance of APM, hand cams and all that is because gaming is a spectacle that is generally viewed, unlike other sports, without the direct input of the competitors being visible. The uninitiated don't find it impressive, because they aren't seeing the actual commands and directions that the players are inputting into the game. Micro is not impressive to a non-gamer, because they don't get how the player is doing it, if that makes sense. In 'real' sports you don't have this issue, because the actions that determine outcomes are all visible and in plain sight I find that the better you get the higher your APM. However, I don't find that the reverse is true. The higher your APM does not correlate with you yourself getting better. This is because the speed that needs to increase is not the actions on the screen, but the actions off the screen. I love the idea of seeing the player's hands and body throughout a game. The sudden jump in ingame APM during high pitch battles. I remember a Puzzle vs Sheth match on GSL where Puzzle's blink micro made his APM shoot up to 400 (or was it 800) and it was amazing because the sudden spike in actions translated to actions on the screen (perfect blinks). I am totally cool with trying to find more ways to see a players actions instead of the game's actions. 400apm while blinking is close to unbelievable to me, I can hit half that, if even and if I do I think I'm playing at my best. Puzzle has always been a good example of Protoss mechanical chops not scaling all that well and being visually impressive, iirc he plays at a good 270 APM, but to the observer cam and hell to many even on here he's just a 'solid' Protoss. There are totally good times to do such cuts as well, the opening 7/8 minutes of games has ample deadair that casters can sleepwalk through given how relatively stable openers have become. Speaking of observer cam, we need more FPVs. I recall at the WCS Season final one of the streams cut to Innovation's FPV for a bit, There's a lot of subtleties with mechanical efficiency, I find it fascinating. Had our annual, only real biggish SC LAN that we have last year. Literally every person hotkeys differently, and more intriguingly to me, everybody's hand position, wrist angles etc are all different. I mean that's something that a hardcore SC nerd probably finds interesting and is on their own in holding that view, but the uninitiated always find the handspeed impressive if nothing else in my experience.
Fairly certain I recall an mlg replay of puzzle playing at 240ish eapm. That probably puts him in the 500apm realm.
|
Northern Ireland25364 Posts
You can't spam blink micro, you need precise mouse accuracy and speed. You also can't really pump up your APM while doing it, as say Zerg can rally and macro at home while controlling a battle on-screen.
I think Puzzle was the fastest notable Protoss in his heyday, albeit before the Kespa influx so I'm not too sure now. Jesus I'm starting to feel like an old-hand, as I used to voraciously consume his streaming output when he was on Zenex. MLG used to keep average APM and all sorts of cool stats, not sure if they do anymore given how I just gave up on navigating their website.
|
On June 17 2013 14:22 DyEnasTy wrote:
I am blown away that you actually think that 400 apm means 400 conscious actions per minute. You realize some of that is spam?
It was below 400 before the fight, jumped to 400 during the fight, and dropped below 400 after the fight. The jump in speed is what made it cool. Big difference between in combat APM and macro APM.
|
Decision making comes first, apm second.
|
Northern Ireland25364 Posts
|
I heard SjoW has ~100 apm, makes it to r16 at DH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
