For a long time I have been advocating more exposure to a players APM (actions per minute) during tournaments and broadcasts. During a State of the Game episode at PAX East I brought it up to the panel, explaining that APM is the best tie-in to normal sports. Someone outside or new to the scene might have a hard time relating to competitive gaming, but if I explain that Flash or Jaedong are doing 400 different things on their mouse and keyboard every minute; suddenly they have a feel for the talent of at pro gamer. APM is a feat of strength, agility, and speed, which is something that corresponds to sports across the board. I feel that broadcasters still don't give this statistic the full weight that it needs.
Those new to Starcraft and those at a low-levels can have a hard time determining exactly how much better a professional player is. While APM isn't a true measure of skill, it is still a number that even someone who knows nothing about strategy can comprehend. As I write this thread, my roommate asked me what I was doing and I told him that I'm writing an article on a Starcraft forum about APM. He knows nothing about competitive gaming, yet the brief explanation I gave him about pro players making 6-7 actions per second really grabbed his attention.
Blizzard has sort of been moving in the right direction. They implemented the battling APM menu on the observer screen and also track a players average APM in the performance screen after matches. Tournaments still need to make it a point to show it more. In the past APM has been used to define players. "NightEnD does all this with such little actions," and "Watch how high RagnaroK's APM is." Think of it in terms of showing a pitchers pitch speed in baseball, showing a players serve speed in tennis, or showing a wide receivers 40 yard dash time in football.
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.
On a side note, with sites like SC2ranks, TLPD, ect, we can find out a lot about the top level players. It may be possible to utilize the SC2 performance menu and record the APM of prominent players. I don't have the coding capability to do such a thing, but I'm sure someone does. If not, then perhaps information taken from recordings of players streams or tournaments. A database could be created and kept track of.
*My question during PAX East 2012 (I can't get the video to start at the right time, but it's at 57m 41s). I also spoke briefly with Artosis at a bar later that night. He seemed to agree with my ideas. Also, I still haven't opened that fighting stick. + Show Spoiler +
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.
I totally agree with you, I also think it would be interesting to bring back those heart rate monitors and show both side by side. It'd be really cool from a spectator's perspective to see APM rise and fall with heart rate and such. I really miss the old way that APM worked and there's so much empty space with the advent of GameHeart and custom UIs enabled through Blizzard that you could definitely stick in an APM meter somewhere on the screen.
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).
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.
I agree with the fact that it does grab newcomers attention when you explain to them how fast a player can play, but if I don't know much about SC2 or RTS in general, I'm not gonna watch a few games just because some players have insane APM. It's neat as an idea to toy with, something to think about and go "woooow..." but that's about it.
APM is a part a player's skill, but that's about it. Let's use an analogy : in a game of football (or soccer), some players do rely on their great pace, but you will never watch a game thinking "omg, these players run soo quickly that's amazing, what a feat". You wouldn't even think about how phisically demanding the match is to them. You don't watch the game for their athletic abilities, but for the excitement of the game, the good plays, the fuck-ups, the drama.
I don't think a bigger focus on APM would make SC2 matches more entertaining for newcomers or neophytes.
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).
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.
On June 06 2013 09:42 Exarl25 wrote: 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.
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).
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.
Actually one of the things that connects RTS/sc2 players and the outside world is APM. If I tell my mom "Hey I am 800 pts on the korean ladder" She will have no idea what I'm talking about. While if I tell her I can perform over 100 actions per minute. She can understand that doing 2 things every second the whole game is actually hard.
Same idea as MPH in NASCAR etc... While they not be important once you have a deep understanding of the sport, they help connect the layman.
On a related note -- how bout we bring back player cams? I remember Proleague used to do this in BW, a quick cut to one player's screen for a few seconds. It instilled the same appreciation for APM talent that you speak of in the OP.
This could be accomplished through the game observer switching to player-cam mode. However, that does not show the mouse. I would rather see livestream of the player screen. Agree/Disagree?
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.
YESSS, I've been looking for exactly this kind of post. APM has been so underrated lately that it's ridiculous. When I first started SC2 I used to think that efficiency is all that matters, but the more I played the more I realized how important APM is. In fact, I think APM to starcraft is equivalent to fitness in sports. You can be very technically skilled at a sport and be good at it, or you can be extremely naturally fit and excel at the sport, but if you want to compete at a professional level you have to be both.
In SC2, you can be extremely efficient at ALL your actions, but if you don't raise your APM then your TOTAL number of actions will always be capped. From all the streams, and replays that I've seen, the majority of foreigners compared to Koreans, are just too damn slow. It's a painful thing to watch.
On June 06 2013 09:44 Nairul wrote: On a related note -- how bout we bring back player cams? I remember Proleague used to do this in BW, a quick cut to one player's screen for a few seconds. It instilled the same appreciation for APM talent that you speak of in the OP.
This could be accomplished through the game observer switching to player-cam mode. However, that does not show the mouse. I would rather see livestream of the player screen. Agree/Disagree?
That would be much more helpful then a number. I also like over the shoulder footage. I think both of these are far more impressive than telling someone how fast pros can play.
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 that didn't take long.
Clearly because you are fine with 100 APM in Masters it means the best players in the world are ruining their wrists by playing lightning fast for shits and giggles.
You know, just by making this thread you've opened up the floodgates for all the "APM doesn't matter, is worthless, shouldn't be your focus," anti-APM bullshit. You know that right? Good. Because despite what you're getting at (the core is a really wonderful idea - presentation akin to a pianist or lithe athlete) the majority of responses are probably just going to be a continuation of all the anti-APM discussion TL has ever had and will have.
The biggest problem that I see is that Blizzard's reading is completely arbitrary. A lot of actions of higher-tier players aren't even counted in the current system. Thus a 350-400 APM player like Jaedong, Ragnarok or DRG will only have a listed 300 max APM at a given time. Under the previous (two months ago) rendition, they would have had 400+, but so would everyone else (it was severely inflated). As long as the metric is arbitrary and isn't every action, it really isn't actions per minute. It's Blizzard's chosen actions per minute.
Second, what makes Korean players like Jaedong so amazing is not just their incredible speed, it's their accuracy and precision. Watch Jaedong stream. There's no wasted motion. It's purifying.
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...
But is he sloppy or precise? How efficient is his macro cycle, his army hotkeys, his ability to triage, multitask while under pressure, all while maintaining speed and grace? Can he walk the tightrope of speed without fucking up and falling off?
If you really want to convey to a spectator the unique identity of a player's physical expression, or "APM," then you need to show an FPV capture of their screen. You need to be able to see the way they box, how fast they switch between camera keys, their rallies, splitting, the speed of their multitask, and everything else that can only be seen over the shoulder or in an FPV.
The number of an APM reading might be ear-catching to an outsider, but to really keep their ear, you have to show just how far the rabbit hole goes. It would be true to say that the whole physical, mechanical side of SCII is neglected. But then, it's a beautiful thing that can only be fully appreciated by higher-caliber players. But I would wager that after a few games, even a novice could begin to recognize the unique mechanical identity of every player and appreciate them all on an individual level.
On June 06 2013 09:44 Nairul wrote: On a related note -- how bout we bring back player cams? I remember Proleague used to do this in BW, a quick cut to one player's screen for a few seconds. It instilled the same appreciation for APM talent that you speak of in the OP.
This could be accomplished through the game observer switching to player-cam mode. However, that does not show the mouse. I would rather see livestream of the player screen. Agree/Disagree?
And it should! It should show the mouse of the player like it does in Dota 2. SC2 still has lots of catching up to do with the features of dotatv.
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.
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.
Depends on how you play. If you play an aggressive/harass based style you would benefit from 400 effective apm throughout the whole game.
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.
On June 06 2013 09:22 FatkiddsLag wrote: " Think of it in terms of showing a pitchers pitch speed in baseball, showing a players serve speed in tennis, or showing a wide receivers 40 yard dash time in football.
This is exactly why I agree with you. I love seeing the raw tangible metrics that shows something about the level of competition.
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.
Actually one of the things that connects RTS/sc2 players and the outside world is APM. If I tell my mom "Hey I am 800 pts on the korean ladder" She will have no idea what I'm talking about. While if I tell her I can perform over 100 actions per minute. She can understand that doing 2 things every second the whole game is actually hard.
Same idea as MPH in NASCAR etc... While they not be important once you have a deep understanding of the sport, they help connect the layman.
I think this is a great example. Going 200 mph is the thing that really grabs the attention of people who don't know much about NASCAR. When in reality of it, the speed is a very small part compared to driving ability.
APM is just how quickly your fingers move. I think that STX had a played called herO (NOT the Liquid one) and he had one of the highest APMs ever and yet he never did that well in anything (or at least not as well as you'd expect ~500 APM to do). I mean, it's important because you can multitask better with it (theoretically) but it doesn't indicate THAT much does it?
On June 06 2013 10:21 FatkiddsLag wrote: I think this is a great example. Going 200 mph is the thing that really grabs the attention of people who don't know much about NASCAR. When in reality of it, the speed is a very small part compared to driving ability.
I think it's kind of the same thing as NASCAR where people don't know much about racing (like me) look at mileage at face value and just assume, "Wow, this guy is driving fast; he must be good!" I kind of feel that being the same way as Starcraft where people look at APM and assume that higher APM equates to a higher skill level, where people know here that necessarily isn't the case.
I think of it kind of like running. You don't necessarily win by running faster, but how well you allocate your energy into doing whatever it is you want to accomplish in the competition. In SC2 sense, as long as the APM matches what you're trying to accomplish, then it's fine.
That being said, I think macroing doesn't require high APM, but macroing and doing something like good army splits or controlling Phoenixes will demand a lot more of your APM to make use of them.
On June 06 2013 10:33 IntoTheheart wrote: APM is just how quickly your fingers move. I think that STX had a played called herO (NOT the Liquid one) and he had one of the highest APMs ever and yet he never did that well in anything (or at least not as well as you'd expect ~500 APM to do). I mean, it's important because you can multitask better with it (theoretically) but it doesn't indicate THAT much does it?
And this is exactly what the OP is talking about. A SC2 newbie can understand the meaning of apm and moving your fingers extremely quickly, while he won´t ever comprehend why that particular gateway pressure opening was so effective vs the zerg who delayed his upgrades.
I think they avoid showing the APM too much because while we can drool over how high the numbers get sometimes, the APM won't usually be the deciding factor in battles nor will it be an important piece of information in the big picture that is the game. Many times, particularly in foreign tournaments, the observer can't capture/display all the action or information that's happening at any given time. We wouldn't want to tax observer APM more than it already is taxed by the level of the players they're trying to keep up with.
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.
APM is fairly meaningless. Even between races Zerg is naturally higher and protoss smaller. I play a management style, mid-masters on Korea with 80-90 apm and often beat players with well over double. It's a lot like penis size, it's more about how you use it.
Even though I don't like APM, and don't think it should be shown because that would just distract from the action going on screen, what I would like is for casters to show the game from the player's perspective more often. It is almost impossible to tell what is going on when watching a third party cam, while watching from first person you can feel the momentum of the units and how much they're struggling to keep their economy going because an attack is coming at a critical timing and how much they have to stretch to click all over the screen.
I mostly agree but keep in mind a big reason why the in game APM hasn't been used as much is because of how broken the meter has been. I think it actually shows real APM ever seen the most recent change but I'm not sure.
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.
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 =)
Looking at APM and comparing it to a player's displayed gameplay says a lot about the him. A low APM player who still wins displays strategic strength, but is limiting his range of styles. A high APM player who gets mediocre results is either playing inefficiently or is lacking on the mental aspects.
I think since there's a soft cap on how fast a player can think and act coherently, the APM counter doesn't distinguish between players who operate around that range. In short, APM deserves a line in post-game statistics, nothing more.
On June 06 2013 09:36 GudulesmSC2 wrote: I agree with the fact that it does grab newcomers attention when you explain to them how fast a player can play, but if I don't know much about SC2 or RTS in general, I'm not gonna watch a few games just because some players have insane APM. It's neat as an idea to toy with, something to think about and go "woooow..." but that's about it.
APM is a part a player's skill, but that's about it. Let's use an analogy : in a game of football (or soccer), some players do rely on their great pace, but you will never watch a game thinking "omg, these players run soo quickly that's amazing, what a feat". You wouldn't even think about how phisically demanding the match is to them. You don't watch the game for their athletic abilities, but for the excitement of the game, the good plays, the fuck-ups, the drama.
I don't think a bigger focus on APM would make SC2 matches more entertaining for newcomers or neophytes.
My 2 cents.
This is a pretty good analogy.
APM is a cool way of showing how not everyone can do what these guys do, but not much else, and it certainly isn't going to be a bridge between eSports and normal sports. It's just a feature of the game. Not that important.
I prefer what OGN does (or used to do?) where they would briefly show the in-game view of the players from time to time, and you could see how fast they were. To me this is more impressive and more entertaining than just a number.
It's better to focus on providing an entertaining product than to dumb down the product for alternative audiences.
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.
On June 06 2013 11:29 BuddhaMonk wrote: I prefer what OGN does (or used to do?) where they would briefly show the in-game view of the players from time to time, and you could see how fast they were. To me this is more impressive and more entertaining than just a number.
It's better to focus on providing an entertaining product than to dumb down the product for alternative audiences.
I agree, it's like the analogy someone wrote about about pitch speed in baseball, serve speed in tennis, and so on. I don't want them to shove that down by throat by keeping those numbers on screen, because they have such little importance. Good announcers will refer to those numbers once in a while. For example, on an ace they might mention that serve was 135 MPH, or on a strikeout they might mention the pitch hit 98 MPH.
The focus should be on the plays that happen on the game, not some number that really doesn't tell me much. The two people playing are both pros, so I don't care if one person have a 100 APM and the other 250 APM, whoever wins that game played that game better.
While this post is advocating the display of APM to lure people into StarCraft 2 by giving a stat (a traditional sports like stat) that people can relate to and understand what going on- there is more to it. This idea has merit but what is at the real heart of this is production values. What aspects would be more interesting to regular sports people to ease their introduction into or encourage their support of SC2 – you mentioned APM. But the more stats the better APM, win loss rates on maps per race, screens per minute (as mentioned above) etc - -stats validate a sport and allows people to read into the sport more.
The production values in StarCraft broadcasts have been very substandard for the most part and there has been no attempt to standardise the approach. Every major sport has a “preferred way” it does its broadcasts. Camera angles, stats, replay options, on screen highlights all are used to add to the event- close up of players been dejected or overjoyed are used to impart the emotion and tension of a sporting contest. StarCraft broadcaster have not fully embraced all the aspects of broadcasting a sport. Regardless of the sport everyone can relate to people fighting, competing, winning or losing. StarCraft broadcasters should all.
* Cut to player cam during the match *how awesome would it be to have unrestricted camera angles in StarCraft. (I know there is already and obs UI with greater zoom) * Make use of picture in picture to show 2 places of action or one player face and on screen action or on screen action and what’s going on with a players keyboard etc. * Should cut to keyboard for the “wow look at those guys hands go” moments. * Show split screen player cams after the game. * Overlay stats regularly in game and at time these stats are meaningful eg APM current and average, “it’s now been 15 minutes this player only loses 2% of his games if they go longer than 15 minutes” * involve the spectators more especially in between matches. Instead of Tasteless and Artosis struggling for content. Have one of them or someone speak to the audience and get them involved. * Work on communication between observer and commentator. There are many times in the GSL the observer is showing everyone what’s happening but the commentators miss it and a few minutes later they say something like “does he have a roach warren?” even though the observer was point to it while it was been built. Often these things happen during “down time” and the casters are talking about the games they played at high school. * Mentions sponsor and not sponsor rivals. Look after the sponsors
None of these things are important really – StarCraft will go on and it will have its fans. But if people care about expanding it and growing its supporter base you can only do that by appealing to as many people as possible. And you can only do this through the medium that displays its content to the world and that’s its broadcasts and broadcasters. There have been some great progress in professionalism since the early days but there is still a long way to go before production standards across all of StarCraft come close to those of more traditional sports.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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 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. -_-
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
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 09:33 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 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.
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
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...
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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 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...
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
In fights, there are far more important things to mention. And I fuck*n hate it when casters talk about "APM" at the start of the game when nothing happens. Whenever "APM" would be interesting, there are far more interesting things to talk about. I think it is better to show the First Person cam more often, either using a "over the shoulder" view or the ingame first person view WITH THE MOUSE CURSOR (very important!). There is also quite a big risk of alienating potential casual viewers with too much nerdy gibberish.
There is a definite link between apm and multi-tasking. While it has been proved that <100 apm players can take games off >200 apm players, you need very high apm to multitask.
Try maintaining control over two drops and army positioning with <100 apm. Any decent placement of static defence or units will make the drops a waste and ineffective if you are not in control of your drops. Unless the defender is willing to invest in enough static defence to cover their whole base (which will put them at a huge disadvantage) they will have to use a significant amount of apm to react to the dropping players apm. Otherwise the dropping player can just circumvent units/static defence and put the defender at a big disadvantage.
It is when you watch players like select that you can really see how he is able to utilise his fantastic apm, with his abilitiy to multitask, to destroy opponents who cant keep up.
As long as blizzard continues to make multitasking a viable and rewarding way to play, then apm will be very important and people with higher apm (and good multitasking) will be able to outplay lower apm players.
High apm doesnt make good multitasking but good multitasking requires high apm.
way back in the day . . before the queen buff, the end of match screen of a lot of the streams used to show this, i remember the big dude with the great mutton chop side burns being the caster. Yes its good to show i think
They should do what they did in BW matches (like they did recently with Bogus) and show the FPV of the players for about 15 seconds during matches at different times, all tournaments need to take note of SPL though and get some screen swaps to the player's faces.
There you go. SC2 will never measure up to BW in raw mechanical skill. Maybe that's why BW is so much more fun to watch? Importance of APM, I'm all about that. I for one, get excited when I see this level of play. In BW, players could build their playstyle entirely around their mechanical ability, attacking the weak spots in an opponent's own mechanical ability. In SC2, these weak spots are significantly removed because the game does it for the player already, or allows the player to do it easily. Now, it's all about what unit vs what unit.
As plat 29y old casual i may say that most interesting for me when i watch pros games are medium size battles. When splitting, surrounding, spell casting happend. Its nice to see good multitasking(few drops). What makes no impression on me?: - specific timming attack(as 90% of casuals i cannot appreciate attack that comes 15 sec before enemy will finish something and this is a reason of big advantage, im no a expert in game so i cannot notice this, for me is just "okej.. he came to his base with more units and won..strange" - apm statistic ( i start thinking then that this game is 90% arcade and 10% strategy, i really preffer to see someone with less apm but smarter composition and tactic)
APM is the most important aspect of the game. Without APM, you wouldn't be able to move things around quickly and you would lose every game. Some people put too much stock in their silly little "strategies", which aren't really strategies at all, when the strategy should revolve around hitting the opponent with blinding amounts of APM.
I increased my APM from around 150 to 200, and I moved up in rank from Silver to Gold league. This is a concrete example of how APM is pivotal in increasing an individual's skill.
On June 17 2013 17:18 xokati wrote: As plat 29y old casual i may say that most interesting for me when i watch pros games are medium size battles. When splitting, surrounding, spell casting happend. Its nice to see good multitasking(few drops). What makes no impression on me?: - specific timming attack(as 90% of casuals i cannot appreciate attack that comes 15 sec before enemy will finish something and this is a reason of big advantage, im no a expert in game so i cannot notice this, for me is just "okej.. he came to his base with more units and won..strange" - apm statistic ( i start thinking then that this game is 90% arcade and 10% strategy, i really preffer to see someone with less apm but smarter composition and tactic)
Medium sized battles is actually micro intensive, and thus, APM is factored into it, after all, you're not just attacking, you're attacking, building, microing, retreating, attacking, building, and so on. So...you really are interested in APM actually, unless you sit there with 20 units attacking and just staring at the screen waiting for the battle to end.
A timing attack is considered non-strategic how? Lol. A timing attack is more like 90% strategy and 10% apm/execution/micro. It SHOULD leave an impression on you if you're more concerned with strategy, after all, unless he's blindly attacking you with a fixed TIMER set in his mind, he's scouted you and found a window of opportunity.
Smarter composition and tactic, well, when it comes to SC2, this is what it really is all about already. Getting the right units and upgrades, attacking at the right angles/timings. Strategy. You know what the problem is? You don't see it as strategy because everyone's already capable of it. It's always the same strategy because everyone's figured it all out already, until the next popular build comes out. Why? Because SC2 is so friendly EVERYONE can play at low APM and manage bases and army, etc they have all the time they need to scout, plan, attack/defend. It then becomes a battle about who can do it most efficiently.
On June 17 2013 17:32 ninazerg wrote: APM is the most important aspect of the game. Without APM, you wouldn't be able to move things around quickly and you would lose every game. Some people put too much stock in their silly little "strategies", which aren't really strategies at all, when the strategy should revolve around hitting the opponent with blinding amounts of APM.
I increased my APM from around 150 to 200, and I moved up in rank from Silver to Gold league. This is a concrete example of how APM is pivotal in increasing an individual's skill.
From other hand i was 40 apm bronze, now im 55 apm diamond... well...
On June 17 2013 17:32 ninazerg wrote: APM is the most important aspect of the game. Without APM, you wouldn't be able to move things around quickly and you would lose every game. Some people put too much stock in their silly little "strategies", which aren't really strategies at all, when the strategy should revolve around hitting the opponent with blinding amounts of APM.
I increased my APM from around 150 to 200, and I moved up in rank from Silver to Gold league. This is a concrete example of how APM is pivotal in increasing an individual's skill.
From other hand i was 40 apm bronze, now im 55 apm diamond... well...
solidifying her theory? +1 brother, every since I increased my APM I am able to fight in grand master league!! hi5 for apm.
I thought this was a plus for SC2. Ability to transfer actions from meaningless tasks to things like army composition, positioning, and strategy.
Exactly, it's a plus for SC2 for those who prefer SC2 this way. Meaningless tasks is meaningless to some people, but to others, it can make or break the game. Is it more exciting to watch a player remember/not remember to repair a thor before it gets surrounded by lings in a 1 base terran all in, or is it more exciting that the scvs are on auto repair and the chance for lings to get the surround is guaranteed not to happen? Forcing the player to do more is better for the game, regardless of how mundane the task is. A lot of times, those mundane tasks are what make the games incredible to watch.
The mechanical demands of Starcraft are part of its rather unique appeal as a multiplayer game. There are few games to my knowledge that have the skillset required for Starcraft, much less any with appreciable playerbases and the greater universe that Starcraft has.
I err more towards scph's view, albeit from a slightly different perspective. The issue with a lot of the frustration with SC2 for many is the potency of allins that are difficult to scout and require very specific reactions, but sometimes without the corresponding difficulty of execution at the end of the other player.
Not so much midgame ones, but really early timings can be a complete pain to successfully scout. For me watching BW (albeit I'm no expert) the one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is the early game scouting that is possible in that game. Without ramps that you can block easily, you see top level players like Bisu (as a Protoss I really have to start there with my retrospective viewings!) keep their scouting probes alive for ages and make meaningful reads.
On June 17 2013 17:32 ninazerg wrote: APM is the most important aspect of the game. Without APM, you wouldn't be able to move things around quickly and you would lose every game. Some people put too much stock in their silly little "strategies", which aren't really strategies at all, when the strategy should revolve around hitting the opponent with blinding amounts of APM.
I increased my APM from around 150 to 200, and I moved up in rank from Silver to Gold league. This is a concrete example of how APM is pivotal in increasing an individual's skill.
WHAT? If you had invested that time into doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing faster you would be in diamond now instead of Gold. Your existence proofs very well that APM alone is not very important. There are PRO players with less APM then you. You should reevaluate your priorities.
The number alone says very little. IF you look at pro replays, some of them have the habit to issue move commands several times. Others put effort into every single action and make fewer more accurate clicks. Often you can do more with less AMP and more accuracy.
I play all three races at about the same level and my APM is the highest with Zerg. Its a little bit lower with Terran and far lower with Toss. IMHO Zerg requires more inaccurate easy repetitive actions that do not require the same accuracy as the tasks preformed by the other races. Creep spreading, ling and ovi scouting, injecting, army movement and even building and worker management requires less pixel accurate clicks then with the other races. In the end a player will have a higher APM count as Zerg without necessarily playing faster or investing more attention. This is just an example to demonstrate why APM alone without looking at the play has a rather low information value.
On June 17 2013 17:32 ninazerg wrote: APM is the most important aspect of the game. Without APM, you wouldn't be able to move things around quickly and you would lose every game. Some people put too much stock in their silly little "strategies", which aren't really strategies at all, when the strategy should revolve around hitting the opponent with blinding amounts of APM.
I increased my APM from around 150 to 200, and I moved up in rank from Silver to Gold league. This is a concrete example of how APM is pivotal in increasing an individual's skill.
WHAT? If you had invested that time into doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing faster you would be in diamond now instead of Gold. Your existence proofs very well that APM alone is not very important. There are PRO players with less APM then you. You should reevaluate your priorities.
The number alone says very little. IF you look at pro replays, some of them have the habit to issue move commands several times. Others put effort into every single action and make fewer more accurate clicks. Often you can do more with less AMP and more accuracy.
I play all three races at about the same level and my APM is the highest with Zerg. Its a little bit lower with Terran and far lower with Toss. IMHO Zerg requires more inaccurate easy repetitive actions that do not require the same accuracy as the tasks preformed by the other races. Creep spreading, ling and ovi scouting, injecting, army movement and even building and worker management requires less pixel accurate clicks then with the other races. In the end a player will have a higher APM count as Zerg without necessarily playing faster or investing more attention. This is just an example to demonstrate why APM alone without looking at the play has a rather low information value.
If I just increase my APM, I should be diamond in no time. I think the results speak for themselves, because I went up in rank.
On June 17 2013 17:32 ninazerg wrote: APM is the most important aspect of the game. Without APM, you wouldn't be able to move things around quickly and you would lose every game. Some people put too much stock in their silly little "strategies", which aren't really strategies at all, when the strategy should revolve around hitting the opponent with blinding amounts of APM.
I increased my APM from around 150 to 200, and I moved up in rank from Silver to Gold league. This is a concrete example of how APM is pivotal in increasing an individual's skill.
WHAT? If you had invested that time into doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing faster you would be in diamond now instead of Gold. Your existence proofs very well that APM alone is not very important. There are PRO players with less APM then you. You should reevaluate your priorities.
The number alone says very little. IF you look at pro replays, some of them have the habit to issue move commands several times. Others put effort into every single action and make fewer more accurate clicks. Often you can do more with less AMP and more accuracy.
I play all three races at about the same level and my APM is the highest with Zerg. Its a little bit lower with Terran and far lower with Toss. IMHO Zerg requires more inaccurate easy repetitive actions that do not require the same accuracy as the tasks preformed by the other races. Creep spreading, ling and ovi scouting, injecting, army movement and even building and worker management requires less pixel accurate clicks then with the other races. In the end a player will have a higher APM count as Zerg without necessarily playing faster or investing more attention. This is just an example to demonstrate why APM alone without looking at the play has a rather low information value.
If I just increase my APM, I should be diamond in no time. I think the results speak for themselves, because I went up in rank.
Either my irony-detection has failed me or you are a lost cause. GLHF
On June 17 2013 17:32 ninazerg wrote: APM is the most important aspect of the game. Without APM, you wouldn't be able to move things around quickly and you would lose every game. Some people put too much stock in their silly little "strategies", which aren't really strategies at all, when the strategy should revolve around hitting the opponent with blinding amounts of APM.
I increased my APM from around 150 to 200, and I moved up in rank from Silver to Gold league. This is a concrete example of how APM is pivotal in increasing an individual's skill.
WHAT? If you had invested that time into doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing faster you would be in diamond now instead of Gold. Your existence proofs very well that APM alone is not very important. There are PRO players with less APM then you. You should reevaluate your priorities.
The number alone says very little. IF you look at pro replays, some of them have the habit to issue move commands several times. Others put effort into every single action and make fewer more accurate clicks. Often you can do more with less AMP and more accuracy.
I play all three races at about the same level and my APM is the highest with Zerg. Its a little bit lower with Terran and far lower with Toss. IMHO Zerg requires more inaccurate easy repetitive actions that do not require the same accuracy as the tasks preformed by the other races. Creep spreading, ling and ovi scouting, injecting, army movement and even building and worker management requires less pixel accurate clicks then with the other races. In the end a player will have a higher APM count as Zerg without necessarily playing faster or investing more attention. This is just an example to demonstrate why APM alone without looking at the play has a rather low information value.
If I just increase my APM, I should be diamond in no time. I think the results speak for themselves, because I went up in rank.
No you improved a skill level and your APM increased as a result to your increase in skill, also what the hell are you doing with that 200 apm if you're in gold? 0.o
You seem to think APM = Skill, which it doesn't, there is a correlation but definitely no causation, I've lost to players with half the APM I have and it was totally fair enough, they outplayed me.
True, incidentally the Diamond guy a few posts back with 55 APM I'd love to see you play sometime. Never encountered anyone with sub-70 APM since HoTS, quite intrigued!
On June 17 2013 18:34 Wombat_NI wrote: True, incidentally the Diamond guy a few posts back with 55 APM I'd love to see you play sometime. Never encountered anyone with sub-70 APM since HoTS, quite intrigued!
I encountered a diamond meching T a month or two back who beat me with 50 apm
Decision making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APM
I've played vs GM players with average APM's, who have much better strategic management. Speed is important to a degree, for lets say macroing properly whilst defending or pushing an attack.
I remember a game a while back where I lost to a GM zerg who had >100 APM while mine was 200. He was simply better at making decisions than me.
APM ofcourse helps but quality of decisions is more important than amount of decisions.
Single battle from protoss perspective needs few important decisions - good storm/good FF or focus fire for immortals. You can do alot more, but those 20% of all clicks gives a 80% of benefit. Another 80% of clicks makes 20%.
Day[9] said one day that its alot more important how you enter the battle than how you micro during the battle. I must agree.
APM is very important, but not the most important.
I know babyknight has a fairly low apm and still beating alot of higher apm players..
It's in real impossible for a human to make a real 300-400 actions in a second and also need to think about strategy and placement etc. I know alot (pro) players click like 1 million times and I am sure 1 click is enough to bring your units there (example).
Maybe of the 300-400 APM there stays behind like 100-200 apm effective apm, really doing something.
On June 17 2013 19:06 malaan wrote: Decision making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APM
I've played vs GM players with average APM's, who have much better strategic management. Speed is important to a degree, for lets say macroing properly whilst defending or pushing an attack.
I remember a game a while back where I lost to a GM zerg who had >100 APM while mine was 200. He was simply better at making decisions than me.
I think that's a bit ridiculous, as all these decisions are really just muscle memory. That is literally all they are. Positioning after a certain read, counterattacking, upgrade order, all of these things are muscle memory...
You lost because you were making poor decisions, sure...or maybe you lost because you executed poorly very quickly, and he executed confidently and precisely. Decision making is such a broad fucking term...what does it encapsulate?
I just think it's wrong to say decision making trumps speed to such a degree. On an even playing field, where you had formulated the proper muscle memory responses, understood what you were seeing...you would have won.
Personally, though, I think the only race that really rewards multi-tasking at this point is Terran. Sort of depressing...well actually, really depressing. But hey, that's how the game is designed.
I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
High APM is necessary, but not sufficient, if you want to play at the very highest level. You can still play at a high GM level with low APM (and be successful as shown by goody/elfi/lowely), but you can never be the best.
On June 17 2013 18:34 Wombat_NI wrote: True, incidentally the Diamond guy a few posts back with 55 APM I'd love to see you play sometime. Never encountered anyone with sub-70 APM since HoTS, quite intrigued!
Im around 60 - 65 APM and in Diamond 1on1 with random.
If you are interested, most of my replays go to ggtracker.com
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
I should have left out the last line. It doesn't excuse the fact that in a Real Time Strategy Game you have five seconds of available decision making. Every second should count. And every second deserves action to put yourself ahead of your opponent.
It's like saying about a pianist " he can type 300 keys per minute". APM bragging is a void and pointless as key speed for pianists, everyone with a decent understanding will laugh at you.Yeah you see a lot of people posting this kind of stuff on you tube, thinking they are great pianist, but it really means nothing.
That being said, it's an interesting stat to understand players, and i'm not saying APM is useless, it's certainly a good tool for people who work toward this particular tool, but it's not the only one. Slow players play differently than fast players, but precise player get an edge, so i like when they show APM on streams, it gives me insight on how these players approach the game.
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
I should have left out the last line. It doesn't excuse the fact that in a Real Time Strategy Game you have five seconds of available decision making. Every second should count. And every second deserves action to put yourself ahead of your opponent.
that is verry true.
one thing that is quite diffrent with sc2 and many other rts and bw in particulair is that the timing of certain things are to insignificant, like bisudagger said there is PLENTY time to do anything you like even in crucial moments, while in bw and some other games that totally ISN'T the case. if 1 difiler pops, EVERYTHING switches,
the thing with apm and sc2 is that there is to much time between tides changing drasticly, which is why apm becouse significant less important.
Mechanics only matter when he/she has game sense. Then he/she can make better decisions faster than his/her opponent. Goody and SjoW are good examples of low-apm players, with a fairly good game sense. Yet, they aren't winning that much. On the other hand, Innovation, Stephano, Mvp and other such guys have high apm with great game sense, which makes them champions.
APM is not going to bridge audiences. You either enjoy the frigging game or you don't and please don't name drop. There's a reason why I stopped watching certain things. This will always be a niche game. Accept it.
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
What BisuDagger was getting at was that Bisu's BW style heavily rewarded multitasking and he was able to do what other people couldn't due to this skill, in SC2 there isn't any style that rewards him in the same way so he's a little lost.
Whenever i introduce starcraft and the professional scene to a group of people who have had little or not exposure to it, i have always mentioned the prize-pool and the hand-speed and brilliance of the players.
For somebody who hasn't imagined it before, breaking down what 300apm is in more layman terms is quite shocking for them. Are they just technically amazing piano players who love games? or is this just another thing in the world where people attune themselves to something and attempt to master?
Some people immediately approach me about more information and find it interesting, or they ask me more about becoming a professional at gaming in general.
This is just a bridge and a way for people to come to a realization... that games are not simply games, and that there is an ever-growing level of mastery to it. People love and enjoy watching it for what niche market there is to do so but in the end, it is a viable profession.
There are people who find the 'cute' in everyday life to be littered in the online world, in japanese animation, in games, and in products related to everything mentioned. Other people aren't exposed or initially do not want to be exposed to those things, and find 'cute' in other simple things in life such as flowers.
You may not need to advertise starcraft for what it is since gaming has become more popular over the years, but it always help to educate people on why you love things the way you do. If starcraft is a form of expression for you, i see no reason why you would not share with the people close with you.
On June 17 2013 22:26 nanaoei wrote: Whenever i introduce starcraft and the professional scene to a group of people who have had little or not exposure to it, i have always mentioned the prize-pool and the hand-speed and brilliance of the players.
For somebody who hasn't imagined it before, breaking down what 300apm is in more layman terms is quite shocking for them. Are they just technically amazing piano players who love games? or is this just another thing in the world where people attune themselves to something and attempt to master?
Some people immediately approach me about more information and find it interesting, or they ask me more about becoming a professional at gaming in general.
This is just a bridge and a way for people to come to a realization... that games are not simply games, and that there is an ever-growing level of mastery to it. People love and enjoy watching it for what niche market there is to do so but in the end, it is a viable profession.
There are people who find the 'cute' in everyday life to be littered in the online world, in japanese animation, in games, and in products related to everything mentioned. Other people aren't exposed or initially do not want to be exposed to those things, and find 'cute' in other simple things in life such as flowers.
You may not need to advertise starcraft for what it is since gaming has become more popular over the years, but it always help to educate people on why you love things the way you do. If starcraft is a form of expression for you, i see no reason why you would not share with the people close with you.
Well said.
When introducing to new people, in fact I got in A in public speaking based of 4 prepared starcraft speeches and 1 improvised speech, here's the list of things I include: Boxer, 120,000 fans turned out to watch the final of the SKY proleague, APM, Air Force Ace, Kespa were a few.
On June 17 2013 23:16 Noli wrote: Having a high APM means nothing you could be Bronze with 500 APM.
Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM.
The only people who care about APM are our 2001 past selves and anyone in a league that means nothing (Diamond and below)
"Having a high APM means nothing you could be Bronze with 500 APM." I'm kind of tired of seeing that line. I would bet you all my savings and my life that no Bronze has 500 APM. The A in APM stands for AVERAGE. If a Bronze player on AVERAGE has 500 APM then they are just smashing their hands, feet, and face against the keyboard and mouse. And then there is the matter that it is no small feet to have even 300 actions in a single minute without massive spamming. Which is why JulyZerg who is famous for his apm only had 400 apm in BW. So why even over exagerate and say 500 apm.
"Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM." And I'm sorry but what pros are you referring too. I consider ESF and Kespa as the pool of pros you must be revering too. I doubt any of them have below 100 APM. So please either link a source or don't spread lies.
"The only people who care about APM are our 2001 past selves and anyone in a league that means nothing (Diamond and below)" I love how here you speak for the community again as this thread has shown their are plenty of us who care about APM still. And please don't insult people base on their league it doesn't make you cool.
So overall I'd give your 3 outstanding points a 0/3.
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
I should have left out the last line. It doesn't excuse the fact that in a Real Time Strategy Game you have five seconds of available decision making. Every second should count. And every second deserves action to put yourself ahead of your opponent.
that is verry true.
one thing that is quite diffrent with sc2 and many other rts and bw in particulair is that the timing of certain things are to insignificant, like bisudagger said there is PLENTY time to do anything you like even in crucial moments, while in bw and some other games that totally ISN'T the case. if 1 difiler pops, EVERYTHING switches,
the thing with apm and sc2 is that there is to much time between tides changing drasticly, which is why apm becouse significant less important.
Not sure if you're serious here but one of the main complaints leveled against SC2 is that things happen all in one instant and the game just ends. You have it backwards. In BW because things tended not to just end in one battle like in SC2 there was more room to multitask and win through lots of little victories. HOTS has improved this a bit but there is still a way to go.
I still think the problem is exaggerated. You pretty much can't be a top pro at SC2 without having a really high APM and the best players are all pretty damn fast.
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
What BisuDagger was getting at was that Bisu's BW style heavily rewarded multitasking and he was able to do what other people couldn't due to this skill, in SC2 there isn't any style that rewards him in the same way so he's a little lost.
What i was getting at is there are plenty of players doing well in SC2 using styles focused on multitasking. Hell the best player in the world right now (innovation) basically builds his game around it (like a lot of terrans).
There are protoss players who i have seen doing this as well (zealot warpins and warp prism harass especially in PvZ). I don't buy this excuse and why it seems to only really apply to him.
On June 17 2013 23:47 BisuDagger wrote: "Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM." And I'm sorry but what pros are you referring too. I consider ESF and Kespa as the pool of pros you must be revering too. I doubt any of them have below 100 APM. So please either link a source or don't spread lies.
He talks about EU people like GoOdy, SjoW or elfi.
On June 17 2013 23:47 BisuDagger wrote: "Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM." And I'm sorry but what pros are you referring too. I consider ESF and Kespa as the pool of pros you must be revering too. I doubt any of them have below 100 APM. So please either link a source or don't spread lies.
He talks about EU people like GoOdy, SjoW or elfi.
I'm sorry but I doubt SjoW who is doing great in DH right now has 80 apm. There just isn't that much free time to be that slow.
On June 17 2013 23:47 BisuDagger wrote: "Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM." And I'm sorry but what pros are you referring too. I consider ESF and Kespa as the pool of pros you must be revering too. I doubt any of them have below 100 APM. So please either link a source or don't spread lies.
He talks about EU people like GoOdy, SjoW or elfi.
I'm sorry but I doubt SjoW who is doing great in DH right now has 80 apm. There just isn't that much free time to be that slow.
He has between 100 and 150 on the 12 replays I have of him.
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
I should have left out the last line. It doesn't excuse the fact that in a Real Time Strategy Game you have five seconds of available decision making. Every second should count. And every second deserves action to put yourself ahead of your opponent.
that is verry true.
one thing that is quite diffrent with sc2 and many other rts and bw in particulair is that the timing of certain things are to insignificant, like bisudagger said there is PLENTY time to do anything you like even in crucial moments, while in bw and some other games that totally ISN'T the case. if 1 difiler pops, EVERYTHING switches,
the thing with apm and sc2 is that there is to much time between tides changing drasticly, which is why apm becouse significant less important.
Not sure if you're serious here but one of the main complaints leveled against SC2 is that things happen all in one instant and the game just ends. You have it backwards. In BW because things tended not to just end in one battle like in SC2 there was more room to multitask and win through lots of little victories. HOTS has improved this a bit but there is still a way to go.
I still think the problem is exaggerated. You pretty much can't be a top pro at SC2 without having a really high APM and the best players are all pretty damn fast.
Actually, it's a mixture. You CAN be a top pro in SC2 without being particularly fast (just not Kespa level) due to the automation of certain mechanics.
However, due to the speed of SC2 being a lot faster than BW, there is a hard cap on how well APM/EAPM/XPM translates to effective in-game actions. When battles are happening in a span of 2-5 seconds instead of say 5-8 seconds (just general and perhaps arbitrary numbers, but it is visually obvious that BW battles happen over an longer span of time), the amount of actual input that a human being can produce is much more limited.
This begs the question: why was the "fastest" setting decided to be the standard in SC2?
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
I should have left out the last line. It doesn't excuse the fact that in a Real Time Strategy Game you have five seconds of available decision making. Every second should count. And every second deserves action to put yourself ahead of your opponent.
that is verry true.
one thing that is quite diffrent with sc2 and many other rts and bw in particulair is that the timing of certain things are to insignificant, like bisudagger said there is PLENTY time to do anything you like even in crucial moments, while in bw and some other games that totally ISN'T the case. if 1 difiler pops, EVERYTHING switches,
the thing with apm and sc2 is that there is to much time between tides changing drasticly, which is why apm becouse significant less important.
Not sure if you're serious here but one of the main complaints leveled against SC2 is that things happen all in one instant and the game just ends. You have it backwards. In BW because things tended not to just end in one battle like in SC2 there was more room to multitask and win through lots of little victories. HOTS has improved this a bit but there is still a way to go.
I still think the problem is exaggerated. You pretty much can't be a top pro at SC2 without having a really high APM and the best players are all pretty damn fast.
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
What BisuDagger was getting at was that Bisu's BW style heavily rewarded multitasking and he was able to do what other people couldn't due to this skill, in SC2 there isn't any style that rewards him in the same way so he's a little lost.
What i was getting at is there are plenty of players doing well in SC2 using styles focused on multitasking. Hell the best player in the world right now (innovation) basically builds his game around it (like a lot of terrans).
There are protoss players who i have seen doing this as well (zealot warpins and warp prism harass especially in PvZ). I don't buy this excuse and why it seems to only really apply to him.
His PvZ games against sAviOr in the MSL finals, and his games thereafter, revolutionized how the match-up was played (hence gaining him the nickname of "The Revolutionist"). Relying on mass Corsairs to gain air superiority, he would strike the Zerg with timing attacks and harassment. From this style of play Bisu was able to show off his incredible multitasking abilities; many people believe Bisu's success lay not only in his strategic sense but also in his mechanics. This 'Bisu Build' brought the PvZ match-up into a new era, as Protoss started turning the tables against Zerg with Bisu himself at the lead of the metagame shift.
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
I should have left out the last line. It doesn't excuse the fact that in a Real Time Strategy Game you have five seconds of available decision making. Every second should count. And every second deserves action to put yourself ahead of your opponent.
that is verry true.
one thing that is quite diffrent with sc2 and many other rts and bw in particulair is that the timing of certain things are to insignificant, like bisudagger said there is PLENTY time to do anything you like even in crucial moments, while in bw and some other games that totally ISN'T the case. if 1 difiler pops, EVERYTHING switches,
the thing with apm and sc2 is that there is to much time between tides changing drasticly, which is why apm becouse significant less important.
Not sure if you're serious here but one of the main complaints leveled against SC2 is that things happen all in one instant and the game just ends. You have it backwards. In BW because things tended not to just end in one battle like in SC2 there was more room to multitask and win through lots of little victories. HOTS has improved this a bit but there is still a way to go.
I still think the problem is exaggerated. You pretty much can't be a top pro at SC2 without having a really high APM and the best players are all pretty damn fast.
sorry let me repreash it, the cycles in sc2 are to long or to few, for instance you could be done by macroing all your things in just 1 seconded without your screen there, while it could cost 3 seconds with screen in bw+you had many more other things to do.
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
I should have left out the last line. It doesn't excuse the fact that in a Real Time Strategy Game you have five seconds of available decision making. Every second should count. And every second deserves action to put yourself ahead of your opponent.
that is verry true.
one thing that is quite diffrent with sc2 and many other rts and bw in particulair is that the timing of certain things are to insignificant, like bisudagger said there is PLENTY time to do anything you like even in crucial moments, while in bw and some other games that totally ISN'T the case. if 1 difiler pops, EVERYTHING switches,
the thing with apm and sc2 is that there is to much time between tides changing drasticly, which is why apm becouse significant less important.
Not sure if you're serious here but one of the main complaints leveled against SC2 is that things happen all in one instant and the game just ends. You have it backwards. In BW because things tended not to just end in one battle like in SC2 there was more room to multitask and win through lots of little victories. HOTS has improved this a bit but there is still a way to go.
I still think the problem is exaggerated. You pretty much can't be a top pro at SC2 without having a really high APM and the best players are all pretty damn fast.
Actually, it's a mixture. You CAN be a top pro in SC2 without being particularly fast (just not Kespa level) due to the automation of certain mechanics.
However, due to the speed of SC2 being a lot faster than BW, there is a hard cap on how well APM/EAPM/XPM translates to effective in-game actions. When battles are happening in a span of 2-5 seconds instead of say 5-8 seconds (just general and perhaps arbitrary numbers, but it is visually obvious that BW battles happen over an longer span of time), the amount of actual input that a human being can produce is much more limited.
This begs the question: why was the "fastest" setting decided to be the standard in SC2?
becouse its the most fun to play with and nobody wants to play otherwise.
On June 17 2013 23:47 BisuDagger wrote: "Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM." And I'm sorry but what pros are you referring too. I consider ESF and Kespa as the pool of pros you must be revering too. I doubt any of them have below 100 APM. So please either link a source or don't spread lies.
He talks about EU people like GoOdy, SjoW or elfi.
I'm sorry but I doubt SjoW who is doing great in DH right now has 80 apm. There just isn't that much free time to be that slow.
He has between 100 and 150 on the 12 replays I have of him.
Fair enough thanks for the numbers. My argument would be better placed if he wasn't doing so well at DH lol. I would like to know where the average Kespa numbers lie.
On June 17 2013 23:47 BisuDagger wrote: "Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM." And I'm sorry but what pros are you referring too. I consider ESF and Kespa as the pool of pros you must be revering too. I doubt any of them have below 100 APM. So please either link a source or don't spread lies.
He talks about EU people like GoOdy, SjoW or elfi.
I'm sorry but I doubt SjoW who is doing great in DH right now has 80 apm. There just isn't that much free time to be that slow.
He has between 100 and 150 on the 12 replays I have of him.
However, due to the speed of SC2 being a lot faster than BW, there is a hard cap on how well APM/EAPM/XPM translates to effective in-game actions. When battles are happening in a span of 2-5 seconds instead of say 5-8 seconds (just general and perhaps arbitrary numbers, but it is visually obvious that BW battles happen over an longer span of time), the amount of actual input that a human being can produce is much more limited.
SC2 is not a "faster" game than BW. I understand what you're trying to say here but it actually doesn't make any sense.
However, due to the speed of SC2 being a lot faster than BW, there is a hard cap on how well APM/EAPM/XPM translates to effective in-game actions. When battles are happening in a span of 2-5 seconds instead of say 5-8 seconds (just general and perhaps arbitrary numbers, but it is visually obvious that BW battles happen over an longer span of time), the amount of actual input that a human being can produce is much more limited.
SC2 is not a "faster" game than BW. I understand what you're trying to say here but it actually doesn't make any sense.
The pace of SC2 is definitely faster, units move around faster, kill faster and you can build everything more quickly.
Anyways... Not sure if this is in the thread, but the SkillCraft study I believe collected some interesting data that included APM and some other markers of performance (similar to screen shifts).
The cool thing about APM is it something that anybody can understand, and is impressed with. I just finished my PhD, and I did my dissertation on multitasking in SCII. Only one of the professors new what SCII was, but everyone was blown away by the moon/nada APM video. I had the same reaction from a recent professional development where I presented my dissertation. Basic point, 400+ APM catches non-gamers eye, and can get even the most skeptical observers to take 15 - 20 minutes to learn mor about SC2
I think Bisu would have been really good at Sc2 if he'd switched about a year earlier, when players like MMA and Hero were styling on everyone with multitasking-based play. It just so happens that by the time he really did switch, that sort of playstyle had kinda been figured out. In order to win these days you need multitasking + a really solid build order, and Bisu does't have the latter.
Having a high APM means nothing you could be Bronze with 500 APM.
Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM.
The only people who care about APM are our 2001 past selves and anyone in a league that means nothing (Diamond and below)
"Having a high APM means nothing you could be Bronze with 500 APM." I'm kind of tired of seeing that line. I would bet you all my savings and my life that no Bronze has 500 APM. The A in APM stands for AVERAGE. If a Bronze player on AVERAGE has 500 APM then they are just smashing their hands, feet, and face against the keyboard and mouse. And then there is the matter that it is no small feet to have even 300 actions in a single minute without massive spamming. Which is why JulyZerg who is famous for his apm only had 400 apm in BW. So why even over exagerate and say 500 apm.
"Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM." And I'm sorry but what pros are you referring too. I consider ESF and Kespa as the pool of pros you must be revering too. I doubt any of them have below 100 APM. So please either link a source or don't spread lies.
"The only people who care about APM are our 2001 past selves and anyone in a league that means nothing (Diamond and below)" I love how here you speak for the community again as this thread has shown their are plenty of us who care about APM still. And please don't insult people base on their league it doesn't make you cool.
So overall I'd give your 3 outstanding points a 0/3.
It's entirely possible that people can be extremely fast at typing/playing other games just started playing Starcraft 2 so have no understanding/ spaming (Very common at lower levels) or playing without precision and just flailing stuff everywhere. High apm does not transition to high skill though yes if you are insanely good it helps you do more but you need knowledge to use it efficiently. If Bogus was randomly taking loads of engagements without thinking chances are he'd lose a good amount of them and have a higher apm.
Many none Koreans are known for their low APM such as Goody etc. Obviously pros that are relevant such as Kepsa pros play at far higher speeds.
and 3 you forget how much of Teamliquid these days never played Broodwar and are horrible at the game so they think APM is important. If you are below high masters you don't understand the game at all and have no right to comment on it. I didn't say it to be "cool" I said it because it's true. Tasteless has stated this lots on GOM that Teamliquid is fairly toxic community now. The fact you seem to think that anyone in low masters (the majority of TL) has an understanding enough to judge how important APM is.
APM is a cool stat and cool to watch etc but nothing more.
Starcraft 2 being so easy and automating so much killed the need for high APM.
However, due to the speed of SC2 being a lot faster than BW, there is a hard cap on how well APM/EAPM/XPM translates to effective in-game actions. When battles are happening in a span of 2-5 seconds instead of say 5-8 seconds (just general and perhaps arbitrary numbers, but it is visually obvious that BW battles happen over an longer span of time), the amount of actual input that a human being can produce is much more limited.
SC2 is not a "faster" game than BW. I understand what you're trying to say here but it actually doesn't make any sense.
Go back and play BW, then play SC2. The units move faster in SC2, the pacing is faster, and everything is noticeably faster. How is this even debatable?
On June 17 2013 20:02 MockHamill wrote: I play Terran at low Master level with 55 APM. Most of my opponents have 2-3 times my APM. Them being faster than me hardly matters at all.
99% of my losses comes from bad scouting or making bad decisions. APM hardly affect me at all, especially since most high APM players waste much of their APM on useless actions.
Scouting, decision making and macro decides games, not speed. It is possible that speed matters a bit more on the pro level, but even there 95% of the games are decided by who makes the best decisions.
That just makes me sad. In SCBW and WC3 55 apm is like doing absolutely nothing. In WC3 just controlling a hero takes 55 apm. 55 apm means you actually have 5 seconds every minute that you just sit around. So every 5 minutes you've had 25 seconds worth of break time. 200 APM needs to mean so much more in SC2. This is why people like Bisu aren't winning GSLs.
This is nothing more than an excuse. Just because you don't need APM at a low level doesn't mean it has no impact at a high level.Bisu is losing because of bad strategies and bad play. Plenty of high level players from all races are showing the benefits of having high APM and good multitasking.
I should have left out the last line. It doesn't excuse the fact that in a Real Time Strategy Game you have five seconds of available decision making. Every second should count. And every second deserves action to put yourself ahead of your opponent.
that is verry true.
one thing that is quite diffrent with sc2 and many other rts and bw in particulair is that the timing of certain things are to insignificant, like bisudagger said there is PLENTY time to do anything you like even in crucial moments, while in bw and some other games that totally ISN'T the case. if 1 difiler pops, EVERYTHING switches,
the thing with apm and sc2 is that there is to much time between tides changing drasticly, which is why apm becouse significant less important.
Not sure if you're serious here but one of the main complaints leveled against SC2 is that things happen all in one instant and the game just ends. You have it backwards. In BW because things tended not to just end in one battle like in SC2 there was more room to multitask and win through lots of little victories. HOTS has improved this a bit but there is still a way to go.
I still think the problem is exaggerated. You pretty much can't be a top pro at SC2 without having a really high APM and the best players are all pretty damn fast.
Actually, it's a mixture. You CAN be a top pro in SC2 without being particularly fast (just not Kespa level) due to the automation of certain mechanics.
However, due to the speed of SC2 being a lot faster than BW, there is a hard cap on how well APM/EAPM/XPM translates to effective in-game actions. When battles are happening in a span of 2-5 seconds instead of say 5-8 seconds (just general and perhaps arbitrary numbers, but it is visually obvious that BW battles happen over an longer span of time), the amount of actual input that a human being can produce is much more limited.
This begs the question: why was the "fastest" setting decided to be the standard in SC2?
becouse its the most fun to play with and nobody wants to play otherwise.
It's more fun to not pay attention at any given moment and have your units die instantly? There is a good medium for how fast a game should be...SC2 is a bit too fast.
A lot of the problems in SC2 actually boils down to the speed of the game. It's obviously too late now, since many units and just basic game design is balanced around "fastest", but that's a shame. If the game were a little slower, and gave players more room to micro, this game would be a lot better.
Multitasking doesn't actually exist, as a lot of people know, but rather, it's just muscle memory and short-term memorization of certain tasks. If things happen too fast, all of the memory in the world isn't going to help. That's the root of the problem.
Having a high APM means nothing you could be Bronze with 500 APM.
Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM.
The only people who care about APM are our 2001 past selves and anyone in a league that means nothing (Diamond and below)
"Having a high APM means nothing you could be Bronze with 500 APM." I'm kind of tired of seeing that line. I would bet you all my savings and my life that no Bronze has 500 APM. The A in APM stands for AVERAGE. If a Bronze player on AVERAGE has 500 APM then they are just smashing their hands, feet, and face against the keyboard and mouse. And then there is the matter that it is no small feet to have even 300 actions in a single minute without massive spamming. Which is why JulyZerg who is famous for his apm only had 400 apm in BW. So why even over exagerate and say 500 apm.
"Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM." And I'm sorry but what pros are you referring too. I consider ESF and Kespa as the pool of pros you must be revering too. I doubt any of them have below 100 APM. So please either link a source or don't spread lies.
"The only people who care about APM are our 2001 past selves and anyone in a league that means nothing (Diamond and below)" I love how here you speak for the community again as this thread has shown their are plenty of us who care about APM still. And please don't insult people base on their league it doesn't make you cool.
So overall I'd give your 3 outstanding points a 0/3.
Starcraft 2 being so easy and automating so much killed the need for high APM.
Again, I'd beg to differ. SC2 being too fast killed the need for high APM. Like every defender of SC2 says, certain menial tasks being automated translates to that leftover APM being used to army control, multitasking, etc. But if the human being isn't given enough time to do all of that, then what's the point?
Having a high APM means nothing you could be Bronze with 500 APM.
Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM.
The only people who care about APM are our 2001 past selves and anyone in a league that means nothing (Diamond and below)
"Having a high APM means nothing you could be Bronze with 500 APM." I'm kind of tired of seeing that line. I would bet you all my savings and my life that no Bronze has 500 APM. The A in APM stands for AVERAGE. If a Bronze player on AVERAGE has 500 APM then they are just smashing their hands, feet, and face against the keyboard and mouse. And then there is the matter that it is no small feet to have even 300 actions in a single minute without massive spamming. Which is why JulyZerg who is famous for his apm only had 400 apm in BW. So why even over exagerate and say 500 apm.
"Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM." And I'm sorry but what pros are you referring too. I consider ESF and Kespa as the pool of pros you must be revering too. I doubt any of them have below 100 APM. So please either link a source or don't spread lies.
"The only people who care about APM are our 2001 past selves and anyone in a league that means nothing (Diamond and below)" I love how here you speak for the community again as this thread has shown their are plenty of us who care about APM still. And please don't insult people base on their league it doesn't make you cool.
So overall I'd give your 3 outstanding points a 0/3.
It's entirely possible that people can be extremely fast at typing/playing other games just started playing Starcraft 2 so have no understanding/ spaming (Very common at lower levels) or playing without precision and just flailing stuff everywhere. High apm does not transition to high skill though yes if you are insanely good it helps you do more but you need knowledge to use it efficiently. If Bogus was randomly taking loads of engagements without thinking chances are he'd lose a good amount of them and have a higher apm.
Many none Koreans are known for their low APM such as Goody etc. Obviously pros that are relevant such as Kepsa pros play at far higher speeds.
and 3 you forget how much of Teamliquid these days never played Broodwar and are horrible at the game so they think APM is important. If you are below high masters you don't understand the game at all and have no right to comment on it. I didn't say it to be "cool" I said it because it's true. Tasteless has stated this lots on GOM that Teamliquid is fairly toxic community now. The fact you seem to think that anyone in low masters (the majority of TL) has an understanding enough to judge how important APM is.
APM is a cool stat and cool to watch etc but nothing more.
Starcraft 2 being so easy and automating so much killed the need for high APM.
Your final two paragraphs are very debatable and I don't necessarily have a strong enough opinion to disagree. But I still find it impossible for a bronze league-er to have a high APM especially if they are new. You actually have to understand hotkeys in order to get apm that high. Click 1-cc 2-army 300 times throughout 15 minutes is incredibly hard and I doubt some1 in low leagues has more advanced hotkeys then that. I honestly believe in order to have high apm to a certain degree you have to be good at the game. Thank you for the good responses btw.
In response to the OP i kinda agree. The APM tab is not shown enough and it is absolutely the easiest-to-relate-to-stat in the game for people "outside the game". It should not be displayed permanently for every game because it really doesn't say tell you anything worthwhile and it just clogs up the screen. However having it shown intermittently like how it was done in WCS EU would be nice.
The only real information you get out of the APM tab is how fast a players fingers move on average during a game. While that value tells you something about a player relative to another player it completely fails at predicting anything about a given game between two players, thus it shouldn't be a permanent fixture. EAPM does a slightly better job of predicting the outcome of games (more so in the lategame) but it still really doesn't tell you anything.
The actual actions professionals perform matter more than the raw input of those actions, or rather the amount of actions and inaccuracy of them--so you could say. That is only assuming that these actions are actually unnecessary and do not contribute towards the player's play in any way (or even contributing negatively).
To say the measurement of these actions (their amount, etc) don't matter at all is similar to saying these players don't have very much care for how they perform. They can perform to the best of their ability and in their current form, but can they touch the ceiling of what is possible or what may be a breakthrough in future regular strategic plays? You learn to get faster, more accurate, and to be much more conscious because you need to do so. Sjow is 100-150? he was in the lower ranges of 0-100 before those replays; you saw his performance against RO16 opponent, his level multitasking and game-sense costed him army units many times even still.
I'll be honest, having this statistic blazing on the screen and in your face all the time just breeds jealousy and is a stat that shares the attention-pie that is the gameplay--and lets all be honest here, arguments against having fast hand-speed like, 'that's completely unnecessary' are more like excuses than reasons.
The whole reason i got into Starcraft:BW, and then into Teamliquid early in the days was because i watched the FPVoD's of YellOw, Reach, and julyzerg. Being the absolute scrub back then and feeling good about my play prior to watching these videos, i had no clue about what was brewing on the other side of the world or the amazing play they were exhibiting. People actually watched these players play, often lining up outside a studio just to be a part of the story in a minor way as audience. I asked myself the question, 'would anyone ever travel to watch me play starcraft too?'--obviously not, when you have players like Reach, boxer, and friends. I then asked myself the question, how can i be more like park jung suk? First of all, i want/need to live in his boots more. He does everything in the game at least twice as fast as i do, and probably more comfortably too.
Who are you to say that playing faster doesn't matter? Have you even tried yourself? or tried adding smarter play in conjuction? You'll honestly be surprised with yourself if you put in the effort and if not, then i respect that lifestyle/playstyle, but it's simply not mine.
On June 18 2013 01:41 nanaoei wrote: The actual actions professionals perform matter more than the raw input of those actions, or rather the amount of actions and inaccuracy of them--so you could say. That is only assuming that these actions are actually unnecessary and do not contribute towards the player's play in any way (or even contributing negatively).
To say the measurement of these actions (their amount, etc) don't matter at all is similar to saying these players don't have very much care for how they perform. They can perform to the best of their ability and in their current form, but can they touch the ceiling of what is possible or what may be a breakthrough in future regular strategic plays? You learn to get faster, more accurate, and to be much more conscious because you need to do so. Sjow is 100-150? he was in the lower ranges of 0-100 before those replays; you saw his performance against RO16 opponent, his level multitasking and game-sense costed him army units many times even still.
I'll be honest, having this statistic blazing on the screen and in your face all the time just breeds jealousy and is a stat that shares the attention-pie that is the gameplay--and lets all be honest here, arguments against having fast hand-speed like, 'that's completely unnecessary' are more like excuses than reasons.
The whole reason i got into Starcraft:BW, and then into Teamliquid early in the days was because i watched the FPVoD's of YellOw, Reach, and julyzerg. Being the absolute scrub back then and feeling good about my play prior to watching these videos, i had no clue about what was brewing on the other side of the world or the amazing play they were exhibiting. People actually watched these players play, often lining up outside a studio just to be a part of the story in a minor way as audience. I asked myself the question, 'would anyone ever travel to watch me play starcraft too?'--obviously not, when you have players like Reach, boxer, and friends. I then asked myself the question, how can i be more like park jung suk? First of all, i want/need to live in his boots more. He does everything in the game at least twice as fast as i do, and probably more comfortably too.
Who are you to say that playing faster doesn't matter? Have you even tried yourself? or tried adding smarter play in conjuction? You'll honestly be surprised with yourself if you put in the effort and if not, then i respect that lifestyle/playstyle, but it's simply not mine.
they did this to some part at WCS EU with including a keybaordcam with the apm numbers, but still tons of that apm is jst spam, bewtween 2 usages of the CC (calling mules building scv scan etc) it gets selected like 20 times without any meaning to it
On June 18 2013 01:41 nanaoei wrote: The actual actions professionals perform matter more than the raw input of those actions, or rather the amount of actions and inaccuracy of them--so you could say. That is only assuming that these actions are actually unnecessary and do not contribute towards the player's play in any way (or even contributing negatively).
To say the measurement of these actions (their amount, etc) don't matter at all is similar to saying these players don't have very much care for how they perform. They can perform to the best of their ability and in their current form, but can they touch the ceiling of what is possible or what may be a breakthrough in future regular strategic plays? You learn to get faster, more accurate, and to be much more conscious because you need to do so. Sjow is 100-150? he was in the lower ranges of 0-100 before those replays; you saw his performance against RO16 opponent, his level multitasking and game-sense costed him army units many times even still.
I'll be honest, having this statistic blazing on the screen and in your face all the time just breeds jealousy and is a stat that shares the attention-pie that is the gameplay--and lets all be honest here, arguments against having fast hand-speed like, 'that's completely unnecessary' are more like excuses than reasons.
The whole reason i got into Starcraft:BW, and then into Teamliquid early in the days was because i watched the FPVoD's of YellOw, Reach, and julyzerg. Being the absolute scrub back then and feeling good about my play prior to watching these videos, i had no clue about what was brewing on the other side of the world or the amazing play they were exhibiting. People actually watched these players play, often lining up outside a studio just to be a part of the story in a minor way as audience. I asked myself the question, 'would anyone ever travel to watch me play starcraft too?'--obviously not, when you have players like Reach, boxer, and friends. I then asked myself the question, how can i be more like park jung suk? First of all, i want/need to live in his boots more. He does everything in the game at least twice as fast as i do, and probably more comfortably too.
Who are you to say that playing faster doesn't matter? Have you even tried yourself? or tried adding smarter play in conjuction? You'll honestly be surprised with yourself if you put in the effort and if not, then i respect that lifestyle/playstyle, but it's simply not mine.
Thank you for some much needed reason. Of course APM matters in a game like SC2. Sure, APM isnt the sole metric that determines a player's skill. Sure, APM is probably less influential in SC2 than BW. Players like SjoW, GoOdy, Elfi, etc. with very low APM always seem to drop off the radar as time goes on. They can stand to play low APM styles when the metagame isn't concrete. Where are all the low APM wonders now? Axslav is casting, GoOdy and SjoW have just had some success at DH after not hearing about them for a year or more, Elfi hasnt been around until DH either... Flash has a relatively low APM for a Korean but its still much higher than your average player.. so I dont really understand where people get this notion that APM is completely unimportant. I agree that it sounds for of an excuse for low APM on their part than a reason.
The actual actions professionals perform matter more than the raw input of those actions, or rather the amount of actions and inaccuracy of them--so you could say. That is only assuming that these actions are actually unnecessary and do not contribute towards the player's play in any way (or even contributing negatively).
To say the measurement of these actions (their amount, etc) don't matter at all is similar to saying these players don't have very much care for how they perform. They can perform to the best of their ability and in their current form, but can they touch the ceiling of what is possible or what may be a breakthrough in future regular strategic plays? You learn to get faster, more accurate, and to be much more conscious because you need to do so. Sjow is 100-150? he was in the lower ranges of 0-100 before those replays; you saw his performance against RO16 opponent, his level multitasking and game-sense costed him army units many times even still.
I'll be honest, having this statistic blazing on the screen and in your face all the time just breeds jealousy and is a stat that shares the attention-pie that is the gameplay--and lets all be honest here, arguments against having fast hand-speed like, 'that's completely unnecessary' are more like excuses than reasons.
The whole reason i got into Starcraft:BW, and then into Teamliquid early in the days was because i watched the FPVoD's of YellOw, Reach, and julyzerg. Being the absolute scrub back then and feeling good about my play prior to watching these videos, i had no clue about what was brewing on the other side of the world or the amazing play they were exhibiting. People actually watched these players play, often lining up outside a studio just to be a part of the story in a minor way as audience. I asked myself the question, 'would anyone ever travel to watch me play starcraft too?'--obviously not, when you have players like Reach, boxer, and friends. I then asked myself the question, how can i be more like park jung suk? First of all, i want/need to live in his boots more. He does everything in the game at least twice as fast as i do, and probably more comfortably too.
Who are you to say that playing faster doesn't matter? Have you even tried yourself? or tried adding smarter play in conjuction? You'll honestly be surprised with yourself if you put in the effort and if not, then i respect that lifestyle/playstyle, but it's simply not mine.
yeah, that's pretty much it. You CAN'T argue that being faster is better. It's just nonsense, it's always a plus. So why would you come and say "lol im low master with 55 apm, apm doesn't matter". I got a friend who got to low master doing 2 raxes with 50 apm, does it makes him any good? Of course not. Would he be better with 300 apm doing the same 2 rax? Of course. Saying that having high apm is being good is also stupid, but most people are just arguing against being fast, just as said above as an excuse for them being slow. I for one enjoy working on mechanics, apm and mouse precision, I was happy to recently reach 150/160 EAPM, and I feel it helped me to be a better player, because to get there I had to work on my macro cycle and hotkey efficiency. Focus on what you prefer in the game, as if you're pro it won't matter anyway, but don't come here and argue that working on apm doesn't matter for pro players because sjow or elfi can take games off koreans. They would be better if they were faster too (sjow wouldn't be floating 1K5/2Kmins every time he pushes I.E). If you aim for getting to your highest level, you've got to work on that too.
The actual actions professionals perform matter more than the raw input of those actions, or rather the amount of actions and inaccuracy of them--so you could say. That is only assuming that these actions are actually unnecessary and do not contribute towards the player's play in any way (or even contributing negatively).
To say the measurement of these actions (their amount, etc) don't matter at all is similar to saying these players don't have very much care for how they perform. They can perform to the best of their ability and in their current form, but can they touch the ceiling of what is possible or what may be a breakthrough in future regular strategic plays? You learn to get faster, more accurate, and to be much more conscious because you need to do so. Sjow is 100-150? he was in the lower ranges of 0-100 before those replays; you saw his performance against RO16 opponent, his level multitasking and game-sense costed him army units many times even still.
I'll be honest, having this statistic blazing on the screen and in your face all the time just breeds jealousy and is a stat that shares the attention-pie that is the gameplay--and lets all be honest here, arguments against having fast hand-speed like, 'that's completely unnecessary' are more like excuses than reasons.
The whole reason i got into Starcraft:BW, and then into Teamliquid early in the days was because i watched the FPVoD's of YellOw, Reach, and julyzerg. Being the absolute scrub back then and feeling good about my play prior to watching these videos, i had no clue about what was brewing on the other side of the world or the amazing play they were exhibiting. People actually watched these players play, often lining up outside a studio just to be a part of the story in a minor way as audience. I asked myself the question, 'would anyone ever travel to watch me play starcraft too?'--obviously not, when you have players like Reach, boxer, and friends. I then asked myself the question, how can i be more like park jung suk? First of all, i want/need to live in his boots more. He does everything in the game at least twice as fast as i do, and probably more comfortably too.
Who are you to say that playing faster doesn't matter? Have you even tried yourself? or tried adding smarter play in conjuction? You'll honestly be surprised with yourself if you put in the effort and if not, then i respect that lifestyle/playstyle, but it's simply not mine.
yeah, that's pretty much it. You CAN'T argue that being faster is better. It's just nonsense, it's always a plus. So why would you come and say "lol im low master with 55 apm, apm doesn't matter". I got a friend who got to low master doing 2 raxes with 50 apm, does it makes him any good? Of course not. Would he be better with 300 apm doing the same 2 rax? Of course. Saying that having high apm is being good is also stupid, but most people are just arguing against being fast, just as said above as an excuse for them being slow. I for one enjoy working on mechanics, apm and mouse precision, I was happy to recently reach 150/160 EAPM, and I feel it helped me to be a better player, because to get there I had to work on my macro cycle and hotkey efficiency. Focus on what you prefer in the game, as if you're pro it won't matter anyway, but don't come here and argue that working on apm doesn't matter for pro players because sjow or elfi can take games off koreans. They would be better if they were faster too (sjow wouldn't be floating 1K5/2Kmins every time he pushes I.E). If you aim for getting to your highest level, you've got to work on that too.
This gets said so much but here I go again: there is a correlation between skill and APM however high APM != skill. Practicing SC2 increases your APM so as you get better your APM increases.
The actual actions professionals perform matter more than the raw input of those actions, or rather the amount of actions and inaccuracy of them--so you could say. That is only assuming that these actions are actually unnecessary and do not contribute towards the player's play in any way (or even contributing negatively).
To say the measurement of these actions (their amount, etc) don't matter at all is similar to saying these players don't have very much care for how they perform. They can perform to the best of their ability and in their current form, but can they touch the ceiling of what is possible or what may be a breakthrough in future regular strategic plays? You learn to get faster, more accurate, and to be much more conscious because you need to do so. Sjow is 100-150? he was in the lower ranges of 0-100 before those replays; you saw his performance against RO16 opponent, his level multitasking and game-sense costed him army units many times even still.
I'll be honest, having this statistic blazing on the screen and in your face all the time just breeds jealousy and is a stat that shares the attention-pie that is the gameplay--and lets all be honest here, arguments against having fast hand-speed like, 'that's completely unnecessary' are more like excuses than reasons.
The whole reason i got into Starcraft:BW, and then into Teamliquid early in the days was because i watched the FPVoD's of YellOw, Reach, and julyzerg. Being the absolute scrub back then and feeling good about my play prior to watching these videos, i had no clue about what was brewing on the other side of the world or the amazing play they were exhibiting. People actually watched these players play, often lining up outside a studio just to be a part of the story in a minor way as audience. I asked myself the question, 'would anyone ever travel to watch me play starcraft too?'--obviously not, when you have players like Reach, boxer, and friends. I then asked myself the question, how can i be more like park jung suk? First of all, i want/need to live in his boots more. He does everything in the game at least twice as fast as i do, and probably more comfortably too.
Who are you to say that playing faster doesn't matter? Have you even tried yourself? or tried adding smarter play in conjuction? You'll honestly be surprised with yourself if you put in the effort and if not, then i respect that lifestyle/playstyle, but it's simply not mine.
yeah, that's pretty much it. You CAN'T argue that being faster is better. It's just nonsense, it's always a plus. So why would you come and say "lol im low master with 55 apm, apm doesn't matter". I got a friend who got to low master doing 2 raxes with 50 apm, does it makes him any good? Of course not. Would he be better with 300 apm doing the same 2 rax? Of course. Saying that having high apm is being good is also stupid, but most people are just arguing against being fast, just as said above as an excuse for them being slow. I for one enjoy working on mechanics, apm and mouse precision, I was happy to recently reach 150/160 EAPM, and I feel it helped me to be a better player, because to get there I had to work on my macro cycle and hotkey efficiency. Focus on what you prefer in the game, as if you're pro it won't matter anyway, but don't come here and argue that working on apm doesn't matter for pro players because sjow or elfi can take games off koreans. They would be better if they were faster too (sjow wouldn't be floating 1K5/2Kmins every time he pushes I.E). If you aim for getting to your highest level, you've got to work on that too.
This gets said so much but here I go again: there is a correlation between skill and APM however high APM != skill. Practicing SC2 increases your APM so as you get better your APM increases.
Although I strongly agree with this, is there evidence of pro players who have increased in results after significantly dropping their APM?
Is there a pro player who has better results now that he doesn't move as quickly as he did before?
Artosis wrote this on the scdojo, talking about the skill ceiling in SC2.
"You don’t understand how good flash was at SC1. His accomplishments don’t do his skill justice. Even if you were a huge fan, and watched every single game he ever played, you probably still don’t understand how good he truly was.
NonY had a perfect quote about Bisu. It was something like this: You can’t understand what Bisu is doing unless you are fast enough to do it yourself.
He said it a bit more eloquently than I remember it, but the moment he said it, I got chills. With an almost endless skill ceiling, beautiful things are possible. Things so beautiful, that if you put in more time into the understanding of them, they will become more beautiful."
Both NonY and Artosis have put an emphasis on APM in the past. I remember watching VODS of them in super early SC2 where they would actually practice faster then their abilities to help increase their effective APM overtime.
On June 18 2013 03:09 FatkiddsLag wrote: Artosis wrote this on the scdojo, talking about the skill ceiling in SC2.
"You don’t understand how good flash was at SC1. His accomplishments don’t do his skill justice. Even if you were a huge fan, and watched every single game he ever played, you probably still don’t understand how good he truly was.
NonY had a perfect quote about Bisu. It was something like this: You can’t understand what Bisu is doing unless you are fast enough to do it yourself.
He said it a bit more eloquently than I remember it, but the moment he said it, I got chills. With an almost endless skill ceiling, beautiful things are possible. Things so beautiful, that if you put in more time into the understanding of them, they will become more beautiful."
Both NonY and Artosis have put an emphasis on APM in the past. I remember watching VODS of them in super early SC2 where they would actually practice faster then their abilities to help increase their effective APM overtime.
And yet NonY purposefully plays with a very calm, accurate style. It's not about raw speed, it's a combination of speed and accuracy: Bisu had both speed and accuracy.
You say that as if people are advocating that accuracy isn't important. Any progamer with that sort of APM has the skill to be accurate with it. We aren't talking about regular players.
On June 18 2013 03:09 FatkiddsLag wrote: Artosis wrote this on the scdojo, talking about the skill ceiling in SC2.
"You don’t understand how good flash was at SC1. His accomplishments don’t do his skill justice. Even if you were a huge fan, and watched every single game he ever played, you probably still don’t understand how good he truly was.
NonY had a perfect quote about Bisu. It was something like this: You can’t understand what Bisu is doing unless you are fast enough to do it yourself.
He said it a bit more eloquently than I remember it, but the moment he said it, I got chills. With an almost endless skill ceiling, beautiful things are possible. Things so beautiful, that if you put in more time into the understanding of them, they will become more beautiful."
Both NonY and Artosis have put an emphasis on APM in the past. I remember watching VODS of them in super early SC2 where they would actually practice faster then their abilities to help increase their effective APM overtime.
And yet NonY purposefully plays with a very calm, accurate style. It's not about raw speed, it's a combination of speed and accuracy: Bisu had both speed and accuracy.
I didn't realize inaccuracy was only a problem to high apm players and not low apm players...
The actual actions professionals perform matter more than the raw input of those actions, or rather the amount of actions and inaccuracy of them--so you could say. That is only assuming that these actions are actually unnecessary and do not contribute towards the player's play in any way (or even contributing negatively).
To say the measurement of these actions (their amount, etc) don't matter at all is similar to saying these players don't have very much care for how they perform. They can perform to the best of their ability and in their current form, but can they touch the ceiling of what is possible or what may be a breakthrough in future regular strategic plays? You learn to get faster, more accurate, and to be much more conscious because you need to do so. Sjow is 100-150? he was in the lower ranges of 0-100 before those replays; you saw his performance against RO16 opponent, his level multitasking and game-sense costed him army units many times even still.
I'll be honest, having this statistic blazing on the screen and in your face all the time just breeds jealousy and is a stat that shares the attention-pie that is the gameplay--and lets all be honest here, arguments against having fast hand-speed like, 'that's completely unnecessary' are more like excuses than reasons.
The whole reason i got into Starcraft:BW, and then into Teamliquid early in the days was because i watched the FPVoD's of YellOw, Reach, and julyzerg. Being the absolute scrub back then and feeling good about my play prior to watching these videos, i had no clue about what was brewing on the other side of the world or the amazing play they were exhibiting. People actually watched these players play, often lining up outside a studio just to be a part of the story in a minor way as audience. I asked myself the question, 'would anyone ever travel to watch me play starcraft too?'--obviously not, when you have players like Reach, boxer, and friends. I then asked myself the question, how can i be more like park jung suk? First of all, i want/need to live in his boots more. He does everything in the game at least twice as fast as i do, and probably more comfortably too.
Who are you to say that playing faster doesn't matter? Have you even tried yourself? or tried adding smarter play in conjuction? You'll honestly be surprised with yourself if you put in the effort and if not, then i respect that lifestyle/playstyle, but it's simply not mine.
yeah, that's pretty much it. You CAN'T argue that being faster is better. It's just nonsense, it's always a plus. So why would you come and say "lol im low master with 55 apm, apm doesn't matter". I got a friend who got to low master doing 2 raxes with 50 apm, does it makes him any good? Of course not. Would he be better with 300 apm doing the same 2 rax? Of course. Saying that having high apm is being good is also stupid, but most people are just arguing against being fast, just as said above as an excuse for them being slow. I for one enjoy working on mechanics, apm and mouse precision, I was happy to recently reach 150/160 EAPM, and I feel it helped me to be a better player, because to get there I had to work on my macro cycle and hotkey efficiency. Focus on what you prefer in the game, as if you're pro it won't matter anyway, but don't come here and argue that working on apm doesn't matter for pro players because sjow or elfi can take games off koreans. They would be better if they were faster too (sjow wouldn't be floating 1K5/2Kmins every time he pushes I.E). If you aim for getting to your highest level, you've got to work on that too.
This gets said so much but here I go again: there is a correlation between skill and APM however high APM != skill. Practicing SC2 increases your APM so as you get better your APM increases.
Although I strongly agree with this, is there evidence of pro players who have increased in results after significantly dropping their APM?
Is there a pro player who has better results now that he doesn't move as quickly as he did before?
Not that I know of, I don't actually know of any players who have said they purposely dropped APM at all.
As a high master player and a regular viewer I don't want to hear casters talking about APM all that much honestly. Sure if one player specifically plays very very fast or with a very low APM it might be worth mentioning but aside from that it doesn't really add value to the cast at all it's a useless stat for the most part. You don't hear tennis commentators refer to the serving speed all the time either.
On June 18 2013 03:09 FatkiddsLag wrote: Artosis wrote this on the scdojo, talking about the skill ceiling in SC2.
"You don’t understand how good flash was at SC1. His accomplishments don’t do his skill justice. Even if you were a huge fan, and watched every single game he ever played, you probably still don’t understand how good he truly was.
NonY had a perfect quote about Bisu. It was something like this: You can’t understand what Bisu is doing unless you are fast enough to do it yourself.
He said it a bit more eloquently than I remember it, but the moment he said it, I got chills. With an almost endless skill ceiling, beautiful things are possible. Things so beautiful, that if you put in more time into the understanding of them, they will become more beautiful."
Both NonY and Artosis have put an emphasis on APM in the past. I remember watching VODS of them in super early SC2 where they would actually practice faster then their abilities to help increase their effective APM overtime.
And yet NonY purposefully plays with a very calm, accurate style. It's not about raw speed, it's a combination of speed and accuracy: Bisu had both speed and accuracy.
He plays this methodical accurate style so that he can raise his speed and still be accurate. Demuslim has pointed this out many times on stream.
On June 17 2013 23:47 BisuDagger wrote: "Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM." And I'm sorry but what pros are you referring too. I consider ESF and Kespa as the pool of pros you must be revering too. I doubt any of them have below 100 APM. So please either link a source or don't spread lies.
He talks about EU people like GoOdy, SjoW or elfi.
and exactly why he lost Game 1 versus Stardust.
Banking 1500 minerals, constantly supply blocked. If he was a faster player he could've easily won with his lead.
On June 17 2013 23:47 BisuDagger wrote: "Knowing how to use APM matters some Pros are known to have as low as 80-120 APM." And I'm sorry but what pros are you referring too. I consider ESF and Kespa as the pool of pros you must be revering too. I doubt any of them have below 100 APM. So please either link a source or don't spread lies.
He talks about EU people like GoOdy, SjoW or elfi.
and exactly why he lost Game 1 versus Stardust.
Banking 1500 minerals, constantly supply blocked. If he was a faster player he could've easily won with his lead.
Yes and no. Supply blocks have nothing to do with APM per se. Someone like TheStC plays much faster than SjoW, and still ends up being supply blocked quite often. Same for Sting. Multitask saturation and skipping production rounds when microing drops, etc., can also happen at much higher APM than SjoW's one.
i dont think this will help at all. i have alot of friends who are nerds (LoL, wow, diablo2/3, PoE, whatever) but they are not into rts games.. some of them played sc2 over month but they've never tried to play a single 1on1.
Some people don't like to learn buildorders and pushing their apm to the limit (which your suggestion would cause ).
If you dont want to play 8h "alone" then sc2 is not the right game for you because everything that has to do with other people still sucks. (team game, arcade, no real clansystem and what not). Don't get me wrong, i'm not talking about the community, just about gameplay.
To come to my point.. APM doesn't matter, how fast a pro can move the screen doesn't matter, none of these things. Those people who have never tried will never do because of some freaking apm and thats ok, because they viewer- and playercount is high enough to support both starcraft games until the next big thing happens.
You won't get any guys to play sc2 (and broodwar ofc ) if they don't like hard work and competition. (and no.. they won't even watch it)
€: lol at the people who are saying starcraft2 is faster than broodwar. Maybe starcraft2 is faster on your screen but broodwar is faster in your brain. Broodwar is so much harder than anything else i've played. Get your facts right.
A bit surprised this thread isn't closed because there (semi-)pro players who are at 100-200 apm and thousands of amateurs who spam their apm to 300-400. How on earth APM is meaningful.
On June 18 2013 07:29 laegoose wrote: A bit surprised this thread isn't closed because there (semi-)pro players who are at 100-200 apm and thousands of amateurs who spam their apm to 300-400. How on earth APM is meaningful.
APM by itself is meaningless.
The discussion has trended towards showing a player's speed and dexterity both through proper timed showings of the APM meter as well as live shots of the players hands and screen.
APM at the end or beginning of a game is meaningless. Showing the jump from "moving army around" to engagement shows the narrative of a baseline speed accelerating.
Essentially, the discussion is that the better player you are the faster you become. The actual number of the APM is meaningless; what's important is the narrative it reveals.
200 APM building depots jumping to 300 apm during an engagement is interesting. 200 APM, itself is not interesting. 300 APM, by itself, is also not interesting. Going from 200 to 300 in the span of 2 seconds is interesting especially if the battle shows where that APM is being dumped into. Spells, splits, target fire, etc...
Also showing someone's screen bounce back and forth is also very interesting.
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).
Artosis is pretty starcraft smart and he asked LS to coach him.
On June 18 2013 05:40 Baum wrote: As a high master player and a regular viewer I don't want to hear casters talking about APM all that much honestly. Sure if one player specifically plays very very fast or with a very low APM it might be worth mentioning but aside from that it doesn't really add value to the cast at all it's a useless stat for the most part. You don't hear tennis commentators refer to the serving speed all the time either.
Not the commentators, but in tennis, or at least at Wimbledon it shows the speed of every single serve on a screen set aside for it.
I don't wish for APM to flash up all the time, more advocating a use of creative cutting in broadcasts to show handspeed and also the faces of the players at certain moments.
Gaming is different from every other high-level sport or competitive endeavour, in that it actions go Participants Inputs into Computer > Computer renders those actions within the game > We watch the game actions, without seeing the first step. In tennis, you can see everything that is going on, you can see a player angling for a huge forehand to disguise a sneaky dropshot, see the positions and the technique that that requires and appreciate it, even as a layman.
With gaming, unless you showcase more of the ACTUAL playing process that constitutes competitive Starcraft, you will never impress upon a non-familiar person what is actually impressive about the game.
On June 18 2013 05:40 Baum wrote: As a high master player and a regular viewer I don't want to hear casters talking about APM all that much honestly. Sure if one player specifically plays very very fast or with a very low APM it might be worth mentioning but aside from that it doesn't really add value to the cast at all it's a useless stat for the most part. You don't hear tennis commentators refer to the serving speed all the time either.
Not the commentators, but in tennis, or at least at Wimbledon it shows the speed of every single serve on a screen set aside for it.
I don't wish for APM to flash up all the time, more advocating a use of creative cutting in broadcasts to show handspeed and also the faces of the players at certain moments.
Gaming is different from every other high-level sport or competitive endeavour, in that it actions go Participants Inputs into Computer > Computer renders those actions within the game > We watch the game actions, without seeing the first step. In tennis, you can see everything that is going on, you can see a player angling for a huge forehand to disguise a sneaky dropshot, see the positions and the technique that that requires and appreciate it, even as a layman.
With gaming, unless you showcase more of the ACTUAL playing process that constitutes competitive Starcraft, you will never impress upon a non-familiar person what is actually impressive about the game.
That last point is just so true, whenever I explain SC2 to someone I make a big deal of how fast pro players have to play.
On June 18 2013 05:40 Baum wrote: As a high master player and a regular viewer I don't want to hear casters talking about APM all that much honestly. Sure if one player specifically plays very very fast or with a very low APM it might be worth mentioning but aside from that it doesn't really add value to the cast at all it's a useless stat for the most part. You don't hear tennis commentators refer to the serving speed all the time either.
Not the commentators, but in tennis, or at least at Wimbledon it shows the speed of every single serve on a screen set aside for it.
I don't wish for APM to flash up all the time, more advocating a use of creative cutting in broadcasts to show handspeed and also the faces of the players at certain moments.
Gaming is different from every other high-level sport or competitive endeavour, in that it actions go Participants Inputs into Computer > Computer renders those actions within the game > We watch the game actions, without seeing the first step. In tennis, you can see everything that is going on, you can see a player angling for a huge forehand to disguise a sneaky dropshot, see the positions and the technique that that requires and appreciate it, even as a layman.
With gaming, unless you showcase more of the ACTUAL playing process that constitutes competitive Starcraft, you will never impress upon a non-familiar person what is actually impressive about the game.
That last point is just so true, whenever I explain SC2 to someone I make a big deal of how fast pro players have to play.
A friend of mine got upset that he wasn't fast enough to control everything and that it wasn't fair. I said to him that no one is fast enough to control everything. He said that that was a dumb system.
He prefers playing red alert. But only against the computer, and only if they don't rush him, otherwise he unplugs his computer.
On June 18 2013 05:40 Baum wrote: As a high master player and a regular viewer I don't want to hear casters talking about APM all that much honestly. Sure if one player specifically plays very very fast or with a very low APM it might be worth mentioning but aside from that it doesn't really add value to the cast at all it's a useless stat for the most part. You don't hear tennis commentators refer to the serving speed all the time either.
Not the commentators, but in tennis, or at least at Wimbledon it shows the speed of every single serve on a screen set aside for it.
I don't wish for APM to flash up all the time, more advocating a use of creative cutting in broadcasts to show handspeed and also the faces of the players at certain moments.
Gaming is different from every other high-level sport or competitive endeavour, in that it actions go Participants Inputs into Computer > Computer renders those actions within the game > We watch the game actions, without seeing the first step. In tennis, you can see everything that is going on, you can see a player angling for a huge forehand to disguise a sneaky dropshot, see the positions and the technique that that requires and appreciate it, even as a layman.
With gaming, unless you showcase more of the ACTUAL playing process that constitutes competitive Starcraft, you will never impress upon a non-familiar person what is actually impressive about the game.
That last point is just so true, whenever I explain SC2 to someone I make a big deal of how fast pro players have to play.
Whenevr I explain SC2 to someone I also immediatly add that you really don't need such APM to be successfull. Since I did hear before SC2 that broodwars required shitload of clicks for basic actions (never played it myself), it took some convincing by a friend that in SC2 you really don't need a very high APM to compete.
On June 18 2013 05:40 Baum wrote: As a high master player and a regular viewer I don't want to hear casters talking about APM all that much honestly. Sure if one player specifically plays very very fast or with a very low APM it might be worth mentioning but aside from that it doesn't really add value to the cast at all it's a useless stat for the most part. You don't hear tennis commentators refer to the serving speed all the time either.
Not the commentators, but in tennis, or at least at Wimbledon it shows the speed of every single serve on a screen set aside for it.
I don't wish for APM to flash up all the time, more advocating a use of creative cutting in broadcasts to show handspeed and also the faces of the players at certain moments.
Gaming is different from every other high-level sport or competitive endeavour, in that it actions go Participants Inputs into Computer > Computer renders those actions within the game > We watch the game actions, without seeing the first step. In tennis, you can see everything that is going on, you can see a player angling for a huge forehand to disguise a sneaky dropshot, see the positions and the technique that that requires and appreciate it, even as a layman.
With gaming, unless you showcase more of the ACTUAL playing process that constitutes competitive Starcraft, you will never impress upon a non-familiar person what is actually impressive about the game.
That last point is just so true, whenever I explain SC2 to someone I make a big deal of how fast pro players have to play.
A friend of mine got upset that he wasn't fast enough to control everything and that it wasn't fair. I said to him that no one is fast enough to control everything. He said that that was a dumb system.
He prefers playing red alert. But only against the computer, and only if they don't rush him, otherwise he unplugs his computer.
On June 18 2013 05:40 Baum wrote: As a high master player and a regular viewer I don't want to hear casters talking about APM all that much honestly. Sure if one player specifically plays very very fast or with a very low APM it might be worth mentioning but aside from that it doesn't really add value to the cast at all it's a useless stat for the most part. You don't hear tennis commentators refer to the serving speed all the time either.
Not the commentators, but in tennis, or at least at Wimbledon it shows the speed of every single serve on a screen set aside for it.
I don't wish for APM to flash up all the time, more advocating a use of creative cutting in broadcasts to show handspeed and also the faces of the players at certain moments.
Gaming is different from every other high-level sport or competitive endeavour, in that it actions go Participants Inputs into Computer > Computer renders those actions within the game > We watch the game actions, without seeing the first step. In tennis, you can see everything that is going on, you can see a player angling for a huge forehand to disguise a sneaky dropshot, see the positions and the technique that that requires and appreciate it, even as a layman.
With gaming, unless you showcase more of the ACTUAL playing process that constitutes competitive Starcraft, you will never impress upon a non-familiar person what is actually impressive about the game.
That last point is just so true, whenever I explain SC2 to someone I make a big deal of how fast pro players have to play.
Whenevr I explain SC2 to someone I also immediatly add that you really don't need such APM to be successfull. Since I did hear before SC2 that broodwars required shitload of clicks for basic actions (never played it myself), it took some convincing by a friend that in SC2 you really don't need a very high APM to compete.
I'm talking about solely from a viewing perspective, not playing the game.
Edit: Oh and as someone who used to be an incredibly low APM AoE:2 player who just liked to build a big army and watch them clash I can sympathise with your friend.
While I do agree we still have a gigantic issue: Whatever blizzard has defined as APM in the newest patch of star 2 is not your actions per minute. It's more what blizzard believes to be actions per blizzard minute. So unless they actually end up making apm apm (which has not once been the case since the game came out), making the stat more relevent is utterly useless.
I was actually curious weather or not APM really helps a pro gamer, so I took some replay packs of MMA, Mvp, Polt and MKP, and plugged them into SC2 gears. While APM from the varied vastly from Mvp's 360+ (fun fact, higher then MMA's at times) to Polts steady 260, what they all had in common was that they all had an average of at least 160 EPM.
I chose Mvp, MMA, Polt and MKP because at the time they where the best terran players of them all, champions and championship contenders, I also chose SC2 gears because I have more faith in their APM and EPM calculations then in BLizzard's + SC2 gears has been consistent for a long period of time. Trough my discovery I concluded that, to be a good, successful, high end terran, you need to reach a minimum threshold of EPM.
So in a way yes effective actions per minute do matter and, you can dream all you want, but winning vs masters players with 100 APM won't actually make you a champion, sorry it just won't happen. As for how to get to that 300ish APM and 160 EPM range, I think the only way to do it is like the Koreans have done so far, just play a lot of focused games per day, and by focused I mean with the emphasis on spamming to make you faster, and then with emphasis on precision and efficiency, playing just 5 games per day won't cut it either.
Now for eSports, I don't think showing APM is that interesting to be honest, as someone said though, showing the contrast of APM going up and down as engagements and harass is going on, is much more interesting, kind of in the same way heart rate monitors where interesting.
A more fun thing would be to switch to the player cam from time to time, especially after a game, when analyzing a big, decisive fight or moment in the game, just switch to the camera of the players and see how it went, I bet you that will be much, much more impressive then an APM chart will ever be.
On June 19 2013 00:34 Lorch wrote: While I do agree we still have a gigantic issue: Whatever blizzard has defined as APM in the newest patch of star 2 is not your actions per minute. It's more what blizzard believes to be actions per blizzard minute. So unless they actually end up making apm apm (which has not once been the case since the game came out), making the stat more relevent is utterly useless.
There are other programs out there that could measure and display it. Lets just go back to some of the things we used in BW. The same way casts don't necessarily use the Blizzard UI, we don't need to use their APM/EPM.
On June 19 2013 01:14 Destructicon wrote: I was actually curious weather or not APM really helps a pro gamer, so I took some replay packs of MMA, Mvp, Polt and MKP, and plugged them into SC2 gears. While APM from the varied vastly from Mvp's 360+ (fun fact, higher then MMA's at times) to Polts steady 260, what they all had in common was that they all had an average of at least 160 EPM.
I chose Mvp, MMA, Polt and MKP because at the time they where the best terran players of them all, champions and championship contenders, I also chose SC2 gears because I have more faith in their APM and EPM calculations then in BLizzard's + SC2 gears has been consistent for a long period of time. Trough my discovery I concluded that, to be a good, successful, high end terran, you need to reach a minimum threshold of EPM.
So in a way yes effective actions per minute do matter and, you can dream all you want, but winning vs masters players with 100 APM won't actually make you a champion, sorry it just won't happen. As for how to get to that 300ish APM and 160 EPM range, I think the only way to do it is like the Koreans have done so far, just play a lot of focused games per day, and by focused I mean with the emphasis on spamming to make you faster, and then with emphasis on precision and efficiency, playing just 5 games per day won't cut it either.
Now for eSports, I don't think showing APM is that interesting to be honest, as someone said though, showing the contrast of APM going up and down as engagements and harass is going on, is much more interesting, kind of in the same way heart rate monitors where interesting.
A more fun thing would be to switch to the player cam from time to time, especially after a game, when analyzing a big, decisive fight or moment in the game, just switch to the camera of the players and see how it went, I bet you that will be much, much more impressive then an APM chart will ever be.
My favorite parts of watching broadcast sports is replays of specific moments. Slow-mo replays are great for analysis, but sometimes just watch the fast paced action that a player has to navigate through in 2-3 seconds is amazing!
Why? Because most of sports is boring. I don't get excited watching someone dribbling a ball. I don't get excited watching the linemen line up, etc... There is a lot of mind games and prep time moments that if you keep track of gives you a sense of game flow. But what gets my juices flowing is when the football breaks and the quarter back makes his first two steps away from the scrimmage and all hell is breaking lose. I love the half second pause a basketball player makes as he makes the decision to cut into the key or run around the defensive line for quick pass at a flanking partner. Or when three hockey players get close to the wall to force an icing maneuver to break the opponent's momentum.
Those moments happen so fast and I love "watching them again" that it makes the waiting period worth the sitting.
I'd love to see marine splits, then while the players are macroing up we cut to a replay of the player's screen actually managing the maneuver. I'd love for them to switch to the players screen to show what "boring macro play" looks like. I'd love to see a corner view of the player's hands as he does drop play while defending a push.
I love that narrative, I love that sense of effort being visible.
It might be hard to do it live, but I'm with Magpie for sure.
Just as a test broadcast of the concept even, I'd love for a match to be filmed from shitloads of angles, with also the 'picture in picture' feature that MLG uses it and edited hardcore after the fact just to show what it would actually look like.
EPT
.
