|
APM: Tax or Understanding?
I wrote this as a response to some comments on Sirlin's article here, probably to appear on page 7 of the comments.
(Warning: this is long. Hopefully it's good enough to warrant its length)
(DISCLAIMER: This is not intended to be criticism of Starcraft 2. I don't know what the full list of features are in Starcraft 2 so I don't know what gameplay will really be like. Thus, it's kind of difficult to list problems with Starcraft 2's gameplay. This is simply intended to be commentary on APM.
This also draws on many other people's arguments. Hopefully this synthesis adds some value.)
Introduction
There are a group of people, like Sirlin, who are think Starcraft’s high APM requirement is simply a “tax to play” and does not further the goals of a strategy game. They argue that requiring some level of mechanics is fine, but there should be a bounded maximum useful APM on the order of roughly 250 APM. They support improvements in UI such as automine and MBS, arguing this reduces the magnitude of the APM tax.
I think this view misses some important points. First, it views APM more as an indicator of finger dexterity as opposed to recognition and fundamental understanding of game situations. Second, I think it's impossible to provide a cap on MUAPM without significantly changing the vision of Starcraft. Third, even "mindless" APM has a purpose: it adds a cost to micro and macro that creates a new resource and an interesting tradeoff. I'll touch on the Dune 2 argument here. Finally, I'll look at whether "mindless" APM adds to the fun of the game or not.
Before getting into my arguments, let's lay out a couple points of agreement. We could all agree that Starcraft is a game that, at its core, rewards good decisions on the use of limited resources. We could also agree that the vision of Starcraft is a fast-paced RTS game with large armies and a fine level of unit control, which distinguishes it from many other RTS games on the market. We could agree that the ultimate goal is making the game fun to play. Finally, we agree that "mindless" APM is stuff that wouldn't be required with a better UI, such as selecting buildings individually or ordering workers to minerals.
What is APM?
My first point is people like Sirlin fundamentally misunderstand what APM is. Sirlin's view is APM is a tax, or a skill that must be learned before you can even start to play the game, much like performing a special move in a fighting game. However, high APM on a keyboard is something almost everyone has. To use the popular example, most computer gamers can type on the order of 60 words per minute. At the standard 5 keystrokes per word, this translates to 300 APM. This shows that unlike making complex meaningful actions on a game controller, everyone can make complex meaningful actions with a keyboard and mouse.
SCC argues playing with a limited UI is like typing with an unresponsive keyboard, but this is a flawed analogy. The APM in Starcraft counts all those "extra" actions as part of APM. Thus, it's not that people have to hit more buttons to get the same APM, but people may need a higher APM to do the same actions.
A better analogy to illustrate the nature of APM would be writing a serious scholarly paper. Suppose a college student has to write a 1500-word essay on a subject he isn't totally familiar with. With an hour to go before the deadline, his roommate is aghast to find the student goofing off, not having started the paper at all. "Don't worry!" the student responds. "I can type 100 words per minute (that's 500 APM!!!), so divide 1500 words by 100 and I can finish this paper in 15 minutes. I can goof off for another 45 minutes even." Why is this line of thinking stupid? Because he's probably not going to be able to hit anything close to 100 WPM typing the paper. Why? Because he has to think about what he writes, which will slow him down. The professor, an expert who has written many papers on this subject, could probably finish this 1500-word paper in half an hour (50 WPM or 250 APM), but the student might require 4 hours (6.25 WPM or 31.25 APM). This analogy shows that the limit to APM is not how flexible your fingers are, but how fast you can react to the situation at hand.
Thus, having a high APM is not a physical achievement (I'd argue that being able to roll a joystick while pushing buttons on a controller is much more of a physical achievement), but rather a mental achievement. I'd be surprised if a computer gamer can't achieve 60 WPM typing on a keyboard. Rather, the APM requirement is a requirement on understanding game situations to the point that you can react without thinking about it. Top level Korean players have great APM because they don’t need to consciously think about the decisions they make anymore. They've practiced the situations hundreds of times and know them by heart.* It’s like a chessmaster who’s studied chess scenarios for a long time. They’ve seen this situation before, and they know exactly what they need to do. Such a requirement is common across all competitive games with a time element.
A fast reaction time in fighting games don't necessarily translate to an unbounded MUAPM because of issues with game design. In those games, there is only one "unit" to control, and the unit has moves that take a relatively long time to execute. Starcraft is fundamentally different, which brings me to my second point.
Is it possible to cap MUAPM?
Sirlin argues the game designers should somehow cap the MUAPM in Starcraft. However, there are good reasons to think this is not possible without drastically changing the vision of the game, i.e. reducing the fine level of control over units or implementing a hard APM cap. Unlike other games, the fast pace, large armies, and fine unit control of Starcraft means there's always something more you can do. Implement automine and MBS, and people will spend their extra APM to micro their units (i.e. focus fire) even in large battles, or to coordinate attacks on multiple areas of the map.
I see only three ways around this. First, you could significantly improve the AI so it takes away the need for all of this fine control. For example, you could have the computer focus fire intelligently. However, this takes away a lot of depth in the game. Second, you could move away from Starcraft's fundamental vision, either slowing the game down, reducing the number of units, or reducing the level of control you have over units (i.e. by using squads). Of course, this moves away from the vision of the game which is not desirable. Finally, you could impose a hard APM cap. This is kind of silly, because APM counts selecting units as an action. So if you hit this APM cap, then you can't do anything, even select units? Such a cap certainly feels wrong in a RTS game.
Sirlin argues he could just argue for capping MUAPM without needing to support any specific implementation of this. I'd be inclined to agree, except he needs to give reasons why capping MUAPM would be feasible in an RTS game with Starcraft's vision. If it's impossible to cap MUAPM at a low level, then the whole issue of UI improvements and other gameplay-easing devices is simply an issue of shifting APM from one arena of the game to another. This leads to my third point (which relates to, but does not depend on, this point).
Is mindless APM worthless?
My third point is that what Sirlin calls “mindless APM" is not just a useless device to make the game harder. It actually has a purpose: it adds a "screen-time" cost to micro and macro, thus providing a trade-off between the two and increasing the depth of the game. Suppose you're playing Zerg against Protoss. This means that if you want to build more units, you're paying a cost of an x% chance your army will die from Psionic Storm as you're not paying attention to run them out of the area of effect. If you're busy microing your army, there's an x% chance you'll lose all your workers to a drop. One of the biggest reasons low level players have low APM in Starcraft is because they spend too much time watching battles. Higher level players know when they can safely stop watching a battle and return to their base to order the next wave of units.
The cost of watching your army would be preserved under automine and MBS, but the cost of building units will be significantly reduced. Thus, automine and MBS significantly reduce strategic decisions regarding the resource of "screen-time". This has several effects, such as putting a lot more emphasis on micro skill at the cost of macro skill. It also removes an interesting advantage to the defender (as they don't need to split their attention as far as an attacker) which can damp the positive feedback of an advantage. Perhaps I lack imagination, but it's hard to replicate this effect of mindless APM.
This also shows why the Dune 2 analogy is flawed. Some people argue that if a difficult UI is a good thing, why not use Dune 2's interface, which makes the selection of multiple units impossible? If we look at it in terms of costs and resources, the answer becomes clear. Dune 2’s interface also imposes a cost on certain actions, in this case attacking. For Dune 2, its interface makes the cost of attacking too high. On the other hand, it's a point of controversy whether Starcraft's UI makes the cost of certain actions, like building an army, too high. Many would argue the cost is at a really good level, and automine and MBS would upset that level. They think this balance between micro and macro and the frantic pace makes the game fun. This brings us to my last point.
Is it fun?
For games, the ultimate standard is fun. We play games for fun, and it's argued that fun is just as important a standard in competitive games as competitiveness is**. Is the mindless APM requirement fun? For some people, yes. They enjoy the frantic pace of the game. They enjoy the adrenaline rush from having to act as fast as they possibly can. People also enjoy the extra layer of strategy entailed by the requirement to move your screen away from your army to produce units.
Of course, this is all controversial. Some people don't like the high or unbounded useful APM limit. Who's right? It's difficult to say which of these value systems is right or wrong. It's up to Blizzard to decide which group to appeal to in what amount.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the view that mindless APM is a useless tax to play that must be eradicated. First, if we view APM as a mental achievement as opposed to a physical achievement, it's not clear that an APM requirement is any different from the requirement in fighter games to understand and react to situations without having to think about it. The latter is certainly perfectly fine, so why not the former? Second, it's also not clear that it's possible to provide a bound to maximum useful APM in a game like Starcraft. If it's impossible, arguments to provide a cap are rather meaningless, and UI improvements should be viewed as shifting APM from one arena of the game to another. Third, mindless APM is not useless at all. Instead, it creates a "screen-time" resource that provides another layer of depth to the strategy game. This resource is (at least to my unimaginative brain) difficult to replicate in other ways. Finally, there's controversy over whether a high MUAPM makes the game more or less fun. There are good reasons why it may make the game more fun. Until we can agree that it makes the gameless fun, we shouldn't be so hasty to condemn it.
*See http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=78677 for how Koreans practice. That's how they're capable of hitting 400 APM.
**See http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=86580 for the fun vs. competitiveness argument.
 
|
I read the intro... I'll read more in a minute... but before I forget, I just want to mention:
If SC had no APM requirement or hand-eye co-ordination requirement, than it would be dead by now because the game has become so mapped out, everyone knows the counter to everything at the top levels.. There has to be an aspect of "even though I'm behind, if I play really hard, I can come back" which just doesn't exist without something other than strategy to bolster the game... At least not in most games. Maybe 1 in 100 games a strategy that's never been seen before saves the day... the other 99 it's okay for them to just be boring when people who understand the game play?
Reading your conclusion, I don't think you'll find much whiplash... Everyone outside the SC2 forum has played SC for years, and has come in contact with the importance of APM.
|
Everyone wants high apm. People who don't have it are just trying to make themselves feel better about their failure. 
Oh, and it does make you play better, no question.
|
Yea I was really surprised when sirlin brought this up, and he continues to defennd his 'apm as a tax' position. I was posting on his site as E C there trying to explain that high apm is a skill, not a tax >[
|
I finished reading the whole thing, and the only that strikes me as being a bit off is this:
My first point is people like Sirlin fundamentally misunderstand what APM is. Sirlin's view is APM is a tax, or a skill that must be learned before you can even start to play the game, much like performing a special move in a fighting game. However, high APM on a keyboard is something almost everyone has. To use the popular example, most computer gamers can type on the order of 60 words per minute. At the standard 5 keystrokes per word, this translates to 300 APM. This shows that unlike making complex meaningful actions on a game controller, everyone can make complex meaningful actions with a keyboard and mouse.
APM is both physical and mental. It's not the same as typing words, so you really can't call it a skill everyone this generation has.1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a ... Me typing that in 1 second isn't because I naturally knew how because I type essays... I actually had to make a concious effort to do things like that... 1t2t4t 1a2a3a4a 5 click is unnatural.
But it being unnatural isn't a problem. APM and skills you can only learn by playing the game a lot don't make the game bad, or inaccessible to casual gamers... It just means newbies have to play with newbies, casuals have to play with casuals, hardcores have to play with hardcores... Skill increases the more you play a game, that's the way it should be. You wouldn't want to have played a game for 3 years, only to find out you could still lose half your games to someone who'd played for a month... that's ridiculous. Who cares if skills from other games translate to SC II? Lots of skills translate to StarCraft that impact their abilities in certain aspects of the game... That's what makes it so fun and dynamic... Figuring out what your opponent is bad at, and exploiting it... Going beyond the game, and into the other players psyche. Games SHOULD have skills in them, and really, being fast at something isn't an artificial skill.
Other than that, your points were pretty solid... Especially the screen time point... Although old, it's one of the most convincing and realistic reasons for wanting APM, and it's usually what I say first if someone complains about APM.
|
On February 06 2009 03:24 Chef wrote:APM is both physical and mental. It's not the same as typing words, so you really can't call it a skill everyone this generation has.1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a ... Me typing that in 1 second isn't because I naturally knew how because I type essays... I actually had to make a concious effort to do things like that... 1t2t4t 1a2a3a4a 5 click is unnatural.
I agree that APM is both physical and mental, but I think compared with the unnaturalness of using a game controller and inputting forward-down&forward-down (632) in under 10 milliseconds, the unnaturalness of Starcraft's keyboard commands are much more mental than physical, and much more trivial to learn. All gamers probably know where the keys are on the keyboard and typing 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a etc. is much more like typing "this is a random sentence", unlike making motions on a joystick. From a dexterity point of view, it's much easier to learn to do 1ta2ta3ta4ta5ta than it is to do something like "b b b 9 b b 6b 6c 9d b 2[c] 4d b" on a game controller. The "hard" part is mapping "I want to attack with control group 1" to "1a click", which is mental, and seeing a position in the game and instinctively attacking with control group 1 rather than seeing a position in the game, thinking "in this position, I should attack with control group 1", then attacking.
Bonus points if you know where "b b b 9 b b 6b 6c 9d b 2[c] 4d b" came from.
|
he "hard" part is mapping "I want to attack with control group 1" to "1a click", which is mental, and seeing a position in the game and instinctively attacking with control group 1 rather than seeing a position in the game, thinking "in this position, I should attack with control group 1", then attacking.
I've always been able to do that, it took me awhile to do 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a without ever slipping up, that quickly. I mean, to think "I want my whole army to attack here" was never harder than 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a click lcick cjklciacliclcc kclickc. Even the lowliest noob knows they want their army to attack somewhere I don't think there's any leap from 'oh look, an enemy... attack here' and just seeing an enemy and going 'attack here.' I think the difference between those two is frankly imagined 
|
Hmm. You could be right. The problem here may be (and I really hate to say this because too many people are unfair about this) because I play Protoss, and I usually don't have that many army unit hotkeys. Drawing from my experiences, I associated APM more with macroing, like clicking on buildings and pressing the unit hotkeys quickly. That should be pretty easy, and the hard part is remembering to make units and knowing when it's safe to do so.
Please don't make this thread about how Protoss is easy or imba.
ETA: Still, it seems like there are (fairly low) limits reached with physical aspects of APM, and afterwards most of the difference comes from the mental parts.
|
Sirlin's response:
Zelc uses a lot of words to say not much. I noticed he said I have a "fundamental misunderstanding" of APM. Ha.
He says APM isn't actually a tax, with a bunch flowery reason. But yes it really is. If I make a decision but the it takes more clicks to execute it that should be necessary with a good UI, then I must pay the tax of learning to do all those clicks as soon as possible. If I don't I am at a disadvantage against people who do. This really is a tax.
The next point is easiest to counter. It amounts to "Zelc cannot imagine a way to solve maximum useful APM." Thanks Zelc, but your inability to think of a solution is proof of nothing. This same argument was used by a religious scholar to counter the theory of evolution. The priest "could not imagine" that evolution could happen. If this thread were about finding solutions rather than claiming no solutions exist, then we'd have solutions.
Next, "we need mindless APM to split attention." I think what you mean to say is "we need to split attention." I actually disagree that you need it at all, but this is one point I'm willing to bend on and allow it as a skill to test. So ok, let's say we really do need that. Is APM the only possible solution? No it's not. "We need to split attention" does not logically imply "We need mndless APM tasks." There are other solutions to that problem.
Then there's the idea that the Dune 2 analogy is flawed because it puts a cost on attacking, as opposed to StarCraft that uses bad UI to put a cost on building. Do I really need to debunk this? First of all, this argument doesn't even address the point of the Dune 2 analogy at all. It happened to be about attacking but it just as easily could have been about base building, so you don't get a free pass to dismiss it just because of that. Second, and more fundamentally, the argument has a similar lack of vision and imagination as I pointed out in the last paragraph. Just because StarCraft is currently balanced around having a bad UI does not mean that we couldn't make a game just as good or better that's balanced around a good UI. The theoretical game I'm talking about doesn't make building units too powerful. Why not? Because of game balance, not because of artificial barriers in UI.
Finally, "mindless APM is fun." I think you're playing the wrong genre of game. If you had any sense as a strategy games player, you'd say "mindless APM is not fun." If you think it is fun, you should be playing Guitar Hero, DDR, or best of all: IIDX. Remember that I propose the game still be fast (that is the fun part, I get it), just not so fast that the "skill" test overly values click speed over decision-making. A fast game like that should be more fun to everyone except the few who are threatened by losing their current undeserved advantage of playing at 400APM.
My reply will come when I have a bit more time.
|
This essay is up there as one of the most brilliant arguments for a "Starcraft-esk Macro Scheme."
While, it doesn't offer much that is new it articulates the most important arguments against MBS, auto-mine, auto-surround, etc. far better than other writings on the subject. The "Is Mindless APM Useless" paragraph explained how I feel about the subject almost exactly.
Arguably, a better topic to see the desk of Dustin Browder than any of the macro ideas in that contest even though it doesn't offer a new macro idea.
|
now that i know about eapm, discussions about apm are not as interesting. i know how to get 300 apm in a 20 minute game. but my eapm always remains around 140. hopefully someone actually does a write up about EAPM instead.
even really good foreigners have this problem. guys like merz and nony have 140 eapm despite havein 300 apm.
|
Zelc, what happened to having no time? >_>
|
@Pokebunny: been playing other games  .
My response, which should show up on page 8, starts from the next line:
A preliminary issue. It's hard to convey your tone over the internet, and it's really easy to misinterpret the tone of the author. In the following, my tone ranges from lighthearted to serious, but I never intend it to stray into snark, condemnation, or malice, and I apologize in advance if it comes off that way.
Sirlin starts by saying I use a lot of flowery words. Perhaps more attention were paid to those flowery words, my arguments would be better understood  :p. As is often the case, my conclusions are hopefully less interesting than my reasoning.
1.
On the point of whether APM is a tax, Sirlin argues, "If I make a decision but the it takes more clicks to execute it that should be necessary with a good UI, then I must pay the tax of learning to do all those clicks as soon as possible. If I don't I am at a disadvantage against people who do. This really is a tax."
I feel here I didn't make a clear enough distinction in my original post. There are two limits to APM: physical and mental. My argument is two-fold. First, the physical requirements of APM are easily met, and this barrier is easy to overcome. Steve argues high APM is difficult to sustain, but this is empirically disproven. Google "words per minute", pick a site that tests it, and take it over and over again. For most gamers, it's easy to consistently get a WPM score that translates to an APM far higher than 400. (Granted, there is a physical barrier at extreme levels of APM, but that's around 500 APM if you can type 100 WPM.) Even Steve's note of the reaction speed limit doesn't address the fact that I can type at over 400 APM but only play Starcraft at 120 APM.
Why can I get well over 400 APM on some speed-typing contest but only sustain around 120 APM in Starcraft? It's because I'm not at the point where I can react to in-game situations rather than have to think about them, and thinking about actions takes time. How do you improve APM? By practicing reactions to in-game situations until you know them by heart. This is no different from practice in any competitive game, including fighting games. Suppose that if a character in a fighting game whiffs move XYZ, you can punish with a guaranteed ABC, but the ending lag on XYZ is very small so you have to do ABC very quickly. So you spend a day with your friend practicing to the point that every time you see XYZ whiff you can immediately react to punish with ABC. Sirlin would probably say this is not a tax and there's nothing wrong with that situation in a game. My argument is that either both improving your APM and improving your counter reaction is a tax, or neither of them are, because they're both improving your mental abilities (reaction skills). In Starcraft, there's just a lot more to react to, hence the need for APM.
In game, it doesn't take very long at all to click on 8 buildings individually and press a hotkey after each one. If we implement MBS, chances are it won't even increase the newbies' Real APM (like units produced per minute, not counting clicking on buildings). His limitation is mental, not physical. Once he decides to produce units from the buildings, it doesn't take long at all to click on them and hit a hotkey. He just takes too long to decide to produce the units in the first place. Similarly, if a newbie can't punish that move XYZ, it's not because ABC is too hard to execute, it's because he has to first think "My opponent just used XYZ! I should punish with ABC!" and by then it's too late.
To refute this point, Sirlin could do one of three things. First, he could accept my analogy between typing and Starcraft but show that physical ability is a strong limitation to APM. He needs to give a good explanation for why I can type 100 WPM on a speed-typing contest but only play at 120 APM in Starcraft. Second, he could show there is a reason why typing WPM is different from in-game APM with a keyboard and mouse, and why that would explain the discrepancy between my typing speed and Starcraft speed. Third, he could show why mental training to improve APM is different from mental training to improve reaction speed to counter a move in a fighting game, and why the former is a tax while the latter is not. He has not done these so far, and so my point that APM is not a tax stands.
2.
On the point that it's very likely that limiting MUAPM is impossible, Sirlin argues that I'm making an argument from ignorance. This is possible, however, I gave a lot of (what I think are good) reasons why it may be impossible to cap MUAPM in a game like Starcraft. I argued that if you want to cap MUAPM in a fast-paced RTS with many units and a fine level of unit control, you have to sacrifice game depth (make the AI really good at micro so having good micro isn't needed), sacrifice gameplay experience (put a hard cap on APM and discard additional commands), or make a different type of game. Otherwise, even if you put in stuff like MBS that reduces the need for APM, people will put that APM to use somewhere else, like focus fire with parts of large armies on individual enemy units (6 Marines per Zergling, x36 Marines and 100 Zerglings sounds like fun). Unlike biologists responding to creationists, Sirlin has not provided a feasible alternative. As such, my point stands until someone can come up with a workaround for the concerns I brought up.
3.
In response to my point that mindless APM helps split attention, Sirlin replies that other things can split attention. This is largely like the previous point, except I don't have as many good reasons for why there can't be another good mechanism that splits attention, or specifically "screen-time". The only alternative I could really think of was the screen centering on a unit/building whenever you select it or issue it an order, but I presume that would be far more annoying than mindless APM. On the other hand, Sirlin doesn't do any more than I did as he simply hints at other solutions without proposing anything. My gut feeling is that screen-time is difficult to recreate using other mechanisms so my point probably still stands, but I suppose this requires further investigation. If you think this would be easy to replicate, please speak up and suggest at least 1 solution that doesn't hurt gameplay worse than mindless APM so we know it's at least possible. If you think you know a good fundamental reason why other mechanisms can't replace mindless APM to create a screen-time resource, please speak up as well. Alternatively, Sirlin could argue why screen-time is not an interesting resource that provides a lot of unique and interesting depth and balance between micro and macro, which he hasn't done either.
3.5
To counter my response to the Dune 2 argument (thanks Phantom), Sirlin argues that a cost on attacking is the same as a cost on building. However, my point was not a matter of where the cost is applied but a matter of degree. Somewhere between $1 and $1,000,000,000 is the border between "a little money" and "not a little money". I can't tell you exactly where it is, but I can say that $1 isn't a lot of money and $1,000,000,000 is. Similarly, the cost on attacking in Dune 2 is too high (emphasis on the "too high", not on "attacking"). A lot of people, including me, think the cost on building units in Starcraft is pretty good (again, emphasis on "pretty good"). Obviously, the judgments are subjective and vary from person to person, but as long as we agree that this sliding scale exists, the argument is flawed. I think Sirlin is making a "no bright line" or "slippery slope" argument that is invalid in this case.
He also applies his previous accusations of argument from ignorance to this case. However, that does not apply in this case. In this case, I do not argue that you cannot balance Dune 2 or Starcraft around a better UI. I'm arguing that just because some people think the mindless APM requirement in Starcraft is OK does not mean that they also have to think the mindless APM requirement in Dune 2 is OK.
Thus, my argument that the Dune 2 argument is flawed still stands.
4.
In response to my argument that mindless APM is fun, Sirlin makes an interesting suggestion that I think translates to this. If you're a person who enjoys playing fast-paced games with both lots of strategy and lots of adrenaline-pumping actions and clicking, you 1) should be out of luck and Blizzard should never cater to heathens like you, or 2) should play DDR and Company of Heroes -- at the same time :p. I propose that Blizzard is perfectly fine in catering to people with such interests, and playing Starcraft is a lot easier and more rewarding .
Unless Sirlin can show that only very few people enjoy such types of games or provide a good reason for why they shouldn't enjoy such games, I think this point stands.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I think most of my points stand, with the one that's kind of shaky (#3, mindless APM is key to screen-time as a resource) is more because it's really hard to prove a negative. I've laid out what I think Sirlin needs to show in order to refute my points; let's see if he can do this.
@Steve's progamer practice point:
I don't see how the amount of practice progamers put in is relevant, except to show how difficult (or impossible) it is to master the game. Which is supposed to be a good thing, right? Yes, somebody who is so well-trained in economics and has written so many papers responding to faulty economic arguments would probably have a lot of APM typing that economics paper. That's mastery of economics and the art of writing an economic paper. Sure, someone could just practice without understanding and they'd be a robot, but robots can be predicted and punished in Starcraft just like in any other game. The Koreans train that way because they gain a finer understanding of the game, not because it makes them robots without that understanding.
|
On February 06 2009 05:22 gg_hertzz wrote:
now that i know about eapm, discussions about apm are not as interesting. i know how to get 300 apm in a 20 minute game. but my eapm always remains around 140. hopefully someone actually does a write up about EAPM instead.
even really good foreigners have this problem. guys like merz and nony have 140 eapm despite havein 300 apm.
You need to realize that not all of that 160 'surplus' APM is useless - most of it is probably used for map awareness/moving around/keeping everything in check/etc. It heavily depends on one's preferences (e.g. moving around via the minimap vs. hotkeys - 0 "actions" vs. potentially dozens).
edit:
And, by the way, I completely agree with you here, Zelc, although I think that if we can make mindless APM become thoughful (be it by thanks to my/FA's mineral mechanic, some ArcherofAiur's mechanic, drop pods/warp-in and the like) then we by all means should, cause it'd only add depth to the game. ;]
I especially like how you mention that physical aspects of APM are easily met - that's very true. You can probably reach 200 APM level within a week or two, but to always know what to do with that much APM (i.e. translating raw speed into eAPM) is something completely different.
People who whine about APM "barriers" (be it Sirlin or AI_Mania from bnet forums) have actually problems with coming up with things to do most of the time. Unless you have REALLY clumsy fingers, it's hard not to meet the physical requirements. ;;
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
