|
On May 23 2016 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 06:22 Hider wrote:On May 23 2016 06:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 23 2016 03:50 Cyro wrote:
APM is literally tied to race; 50 supply of zerglings gives 4x more actions than 50 supply of zealots by some measurements.
It's not only a bad indicator of skill, it's also a bad indicator of how fast you are (especially when used to compare people who are not playing the same race and same style) my APM is always higher when i play Zerg and i think i'm just as fast with Zerg as with the other 2 races. so i agree its a bad indicator of how fast one is. However, it can indicate a ceiling on your speed with the particular race you are using if you have a carefully planned out hotkey set up. APM is useless. Mechanics on the other hand can roughly be defined as EAPM * mouse accuracy. No it cannot. For one thing, how can you define eapm? For another thing, that's not how mechanics is defined.
Eh eapm is already implemented by Blizzard. And whether you agree with their defintion or not is completely irrelevant here. Point is that its still a much better metric to look at than APM.
And yes, the only sensisible definiton of the internal part of mechanics that makes sense is: EAPM * mouse accuracy. The external definition is: Micro + multitasking + macro. (external: what viewers can see).
Thus it follows that:
Micro + Multitasking + Macro = EAPM * Mouse accuracy.
An increase in mouse accuracy (ceteris paribus) always leads to either better macro, micro or multitasking. The same thing is the case with EAPM.
APM alone on other hand doesn't imply that.
And if you make a ton of misclicks, having 400 EAPM is not neccasarily better than 200 EAPM. Thus if EAPM increases but mouse accuracy declines, the overall effect on mechanics is ambigious.
|
Canada16699 Posts
On May 23 2016 08:35 Hider wrote:
Eh eapm is already implemented by Blizzard. And whether you agree with their defintion or not is completely irrelevant here. Point is that its still a much better metric to look at than APM.
so is EAPM the stat Blizzard tracks in their post game graphs that you can examine just after the game?
|
On May 23 2016 08:58 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 08:35 Hider wrote:
Eh eapm is already implemented by Blizzard. And whether you agree with their defintion or not is completely irrelevant here. Point is that its still a much better metric to look at than APM.
so is EAPM the stat Blizzard tracks in their post game graphs that you can examine just after the game?
Yes.
|
Canada16699 Posts
ah ok.
its labelled as APM in Blizzard's charts and graphs which is why i call it APM.
|
On May 23 2016 09:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
ah ok.
its labelled as APM in Blizzard's charts and graphs which is why i call it APM.
Eh. I never look at after graphs so I have no clue. If its called APM then its probably APM and not EAPM.
But you can definitely see EAPM during replays.
|
Canada16699 Posts
so we have users discussing various aspects of EAPM and APM without a crystal clear definition of those terms and how Blizzard calculates them. so let's get meta about meta.
step 1: definition of terms.
|
If ZvP really is 42%, we should just repeat what we did when PvZ was 42%, nerf the weaker race and let them sweat it out for 7-8 months.
|
On May 23 2016 11:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
so we have users discussing various aspects of EAPM and APM without a crystal clear definition of those terms and how Blizzard calculates them. so let's get meta about meta.
step 1: definition of terms.
EAPM removes double clicks/spamming.
|
SERIOUSLY ITS 2 DIFFERENT MAP POOLS!!!!!!!!!!! Standard maps zerg stucks, close allin maps with little drop space Zerg has a too many options. The ravagers push too easily when close. Its like for months they don't even bother to read the feedback from any of us people who do statistics. Instead just keep reading feedback from people who don't ladder and buff protoss when they are already dominant why not get good feedback from the community that knows.
|
I would like if we could have a pool of ~20 popular, well-known maps and increase the number of vetoes proportionally. The only map in this pool which I feel successfully executes its concept is Ulrena. The rest are all forgettable or just plain bad. I'm really happy to see Frost jumping back into the pool 
|
> 3. Zerg Larva inject buff back to giving 4 per
This would be absolutely game breaking. I doubt it will make it in, but if it does the domination that Zergs will break out would make a 25 gas hydralisks look reasonable by comparison.
> 1. A Warp Prism nerf
I care a lot more about design than balance per se, so I'd agree with toning down the range of the warp-prism pick-up so that they are more vulnerable to ground units -- at least as a design change. As a balance change, it just feels like the wrong time to be making the change without recompense.
I feel that Protoss has been eeking wins out by the skin of their teeth by heavily relying upon early adept damage and immortal's mid-game damage. With one receiving two nerfs (the previous adept nerf, and the warp prism nerf) and the other receiving a significant nerf as well ... what's to come?
|
I have one question - when will the nerf happen this week?
As they are playing the first GSL groups already on Friday, will they be able to practice at all before Friday?
|
AWESOME patch, just add terran favored maps, cause zerg not being able to go muta is not enough.
|
The patch is live.
Sad to see the Cyclone change went through with 4 supply. It's insane to have this unit on the same cost as a fing Tempest. Nerf the Tempest at least.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
They actually gave the swarm host a different gas and supply cost in the patch than they said in the patch notes, pretty unusual for blizz to mess up a patch like that
|
The thor "buff" (its no buff its just the hots thor) needs to be stronger and more range and remove the lib range upgrade. The broodlords are buffed to range 11 and once zerg got air domination the game is more less over (if you go mech). Maybe revert the PDD cost? that will help a bit in tvz and tvp vs tempests.
I know its just me because im bad at the game, but once zerg got broodlord, corruptor, viper, infestor it feels the game is over. Parasitic bomb cant be dodged and the fights are so hard, and all terran air units clump up too much when moving them around. Same when protoss got their tempest carrier HT army. no idea anymore.
|
DK said explicitly that "most mech games are boring" so I don't think mech viablility is on the table anymore. Making mech viable would take for DK to end his ego trip : if every single unit that isn't marine marauder is only viable as support for marine marauder, that means obviously that some units won't be used in the terran arsenal, because some of them will be better at doing what bio lacks, or that some units simply wont' be used.
For exemple : why go for thors for anti capital AA when the viking does a better and cheaper job? Why go for siege tanks when liberator provides much better area control? Why go for cyclones against ultralisks since ghosts or liberators do a much more reliable job at it? Why go for banshees when 4 marauders in a medivac do a much better and safer job ?
Finally, about the cyclone and thor buffs :
- cyclone buff only means you can take your save 50 gaz in TvP and TvT IF you decide to use a cyclone for defense. It doesn't change anything concerning the viability of the unit.
- thor buff : has no purpose whatsoever. We see all pro terrans rely heavily on bio and liberators in TvZ and TvP late game, because bio in medivacs and liberators are basically an air comp. Terrans late game nowadays relies mainly on a up/down gimmick. There is no role for the thor in that, especially since the viking does a better job in all regards. The only use the thor might have is to make mech suck less in TvT, but that's a strech.
|
A warp prism nerf is really what is needed. I strongly agree to the feedback provided in that point.
Even a simple comparison of the "dropships" and the utilities they provide the Warpprsim is way to cheap.
Warp Prism / Medivac
200 mins / 100mins/100gas
100Schield+100hp / 150hp 1armor
4.13movement (+1.23upgrade) / 3.5movement (+2.44 boost)
long range pickup / heals bio units
8capacity+unlimited no warpin ability / 8 capacity
one or two units needed to max utility / +x units needed to scale and synergy well enough
The gas consumptiopn on medivacs is huge and limits the tech opportunities of terran. At least the warp prism should cost the same gas than a medivac and thus prolnging the tech time for protoss, or making WP timings hit a little later.
|
On May 27 2016 20:57 Zulu23 wrote:
A warp prism nerf is really what is needed. I strongly agree to the feedback provided in that point.
Even a simple comparison of the "dropships" and the utilities they provide the Warpprsim is way to cheap.
Warp Prism / Medivac
200 mins / 100mins/100gas
100Schield+100hp / 150hp 1armor
4.13movement (+1.23upgrade) / 3.5movement (+2.44 boost)
long range pickup / heals bio units
8capacity+unlimited no warpin ability / 8 capacity
one or two units needed to max utility / +x units needed to scale and synergy well enough
The gas consumptiopn on medivacs is huge and limits the tech opportunities of terran. At least the warp prism should cost the same gas than a medivac and thus prolnging the tech time for protoss, or making WP timings hit a little later.
I fully agree on that, its hard/near impossible to catch warprisms as terran. Yes medivac can heal units, but cant reinforce new units on the spot. A gas cost would make sense.
|
On May 24 2016 20:07 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
The thor "buff" (its no buff its just the hots thor) needs to be stronger and more range and remove the lib range upgrade.
Wut.
HoTS thor: 23 damage vs armored target with 1 base armor/2 sec cooldown = 11.5 dps
LoTV thor: 49 damage vs armored target with 1 base armor/3 sec cooldown = 16.33 dps
(all numbers using Blizzard time, not real time)
The LoTV thor has 42% more dps. With +3 upgrades the LoTV thor is 56% better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
