Dont you enjoy watching this clown going buckwild?
Oh so to have a “bronze build” you have to execute it with the same APM profile as a bronze player? Aren’t you admitting that APM=skill? 
no you have to execute it with the same timings. You can spam apm and micro your probe as much as you want. By the way you should probably change APM with EPM. The correlation would probably be even higher. But yes, i admit that at everything below 0.1% of the ladder, APM is highly correlated with APM.
Correction: yes.
A high APM player would not be supply blocked. If you require the supply blocks then you have proven my point for me. What makes a strategy strong is your ability to execute it properly, aka your APM.
some players in bronze have 100+ APM. Clearly, its not the issue. They just dont know what to do with it. They focus on the wrong thing or dont even understand the importance of not being supply blocked or spending your money. This is pure rhetoric as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Just wanted to point out Serral woudnt win any tournament if he stayed on one base and massed lings against terran, whatever apm he is at, thus your statement about Maru with bronze build order would not win GSL. At that level, builds need to be optimized and bronze build order, even if you dont float money and have high apm, simply wont cut it. You really are a master at your craft ! Impressive.
1 Like
Plug average bronze MMR into this equation:
To get:
APM = 0.00000119 * 2134^2 + 0.05411901 * 2134^1 + -53.28971110
APM = 67.61946388
Therefore:
(100-67.61946388) / 13 = 2.49.
Looking this up in a Z table: 0.9936
Therefore 1 in every 156 bronze players will have this high of APM or higher, meaning there are roughly 30-50 bronze league players with 100 APM. The existence of 100 APM bronze players confirms this analysis.
APM problem.
APM problem.
APM problem.
Factually false. If Serral had 10,000 APM he could easily have a 100% win-rate, sweeping every tournament, making nothing but drones from 1 base and allining with those drones. Please review this video for an example of the insane things that APM does:
But thats an average. You are saying APM = skill which is simply not always right because the correlation isnt perfect. APM is TIGHTLY CORRELATED to skill but not perfectly correlated. If APM = skill, then the player in a mirror match up with the highest APM would win every single time. I could get myself to gm with 100 APM by canon rushing every game and beating protoss with 250 APM. Am i more skilled than them? I did beat them and could beat them consistantly.
1 Like
I have a short story for you by Soren Kierkegaard, a renowned Danish philosopher. He was once pontificating on the end of the world and how it might come about. Something about this story rang a bell for me and your attempts to derail legitimate criticisms of Protoss (the APM requirements) by calling me a “troll”:
“A fire broke out backstage in a theatre. The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that’s just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits who believe it’s a joke.”
You are quite literally helping to spread the fire that will kill SC2. The APM requirements of Protoss will be the doom of this game. To buff Protoss to where it is strong enough to win tournaments, every ape under the sun can now flood up the ladder to the higher leagues, dominating GM/masters/diamond, thanks to the absurdly low APM requirements of Apetoss.
As Apes flood the higher leagues, the game’s popularity plummets. The relationship is crystal clear to anyone with a brain. Protoss must be changed to require more APM if this game is to survive.
I would actually argue that the whole point of the game is to tax your opponent’s APM more than he is taxing you. A great example of this dropping him while he pushes me. Even if he has higher APM overall, my strategy made it so that he has to spend more APM defending than i did dropping which can give me opening to flank his army. The highest APM isnt necessarily the most skilled. Its the player that can keep his focus in the right place while chosing the right strategy to tax his opponent’s attention. Of course, someone with infinite APM would be insanely good but we’re human and we all have limited attention (besides you because you’re a printer genius).
Edit: wait im actually getting back into arguing with this guy. Shoo !! Off to your printer you go. BRRRR
Nope. I agree protoss’s low APM requirement is terrible for this game and should be increased. I think your vision is incomplete and over simplistic. The strategy part of the game is chosing the right strategy to tax your opponent’s attention and thats part of skill. If shield batteries are so broken they dont require anything from the protoss players, that means its harder to tax their attention for no reason. And thats bad for the game. Also just the low apm requirements for everything they do means its harder to tax their attention.
That’s exactly it. When the apm is equal is when other factors are able to express an effect on the outcome.
Whatever factors may exist, they scatter the APM/MMR correlation by +/-13 APM. So all your strategizing and blah blah blah netted what an opponent with +13 APM already had. If you are a GM with 300 APM, the other factors make up roughly 4% of rank. In bronze, they make up 18% of your rank.
Clearly false.
And sometimes you will tax them, they will tax you, and on average who wins is the one with more APM because he will fair better in both scenarios whether he is taxed or you are taxed.
If i have 225 APM and my opponent has 250 APM. I beat him consistently because i keep sending drops at the right place while he sends them into my missile turrets. That is taxing his attention more than mine because he needs to answer the drops with his attention. My turret placement cost me the same APM than him but my correct placement allow me to focus more attention on my army, get a good position and win the fight and even slightly overcome a slight macro advantage for him.
Who is more skilled in that situation? He has higher APM but i taxed his attention better.
On average, most likely. But thats exactly my point. On average =/= every game. Some players are more efficient with their APM or have better understanding of where and how to be. And thats my whole point. You even said it yourself.
Some other factors need to be equated in. Now the proportion you are showing seems really really low and i’m quite surprised by the result. Is your analysis correct? I have no idea, i’m not into advanced statistics. There’s no point in me even arguing with those numbers as i have no idea if what you are saying is valid. It could be. All im saying is you are over simplifying when you’re saying APM = Skill, thats strictly false.
Its Skill = APM + some other factors that arent worth as much. You even admitted to it yourself. I never said APM isnt important like some other apetoss on the forums. Its of course very important but your oversimplify it.
That’s called a special pleading fallacy, sweetie:
You can’t rely on good luck long term. You have to look at the average. Your strategies will be good vs some people, bad vs others, but on average who wins is the person with higher APM. Regardless of the scenario, whether your strategy beats him or his beats yours, he is better off in both scenarios.
MMR ranks are averages. You can’t rely on good luck. You are going to have average luck and when that happens it’s APM that decides who is better.
Nope. APM is either the entirety of skill or the factors of skill other than APM are almost perfectly predicted by APM that they are indistinguishable.
Yeah, that’s correct. If Blizzard’s data is correct (win-rate correlates with APM at 0.65) then +/-13 is the standard deviation on a per individual basis.
I don’t have to know what other factors there are to know how much they impact the result. They impact the result at GM by roughly 4% maximum.
if you think 4% is negligible, that makes me question your analysis even more lmao
By comparison it is 24:1. APM has 24x the impact on MMR than the combined effect of all other factors. Technically that’s just an approximation based on the standard deviation. You’d have to calculate the positive half of the integral for N(0, 13) to know the total impact.
1 Like
of course APM is more important than the other factors, again, i’ve never said it wasnt. You seem to confuse my point of view with the one of the apetoss. APM is of course most likely the most important factor. Just color me surprised that its by that much, one would have though that the amount of canon rusher, proxy rax and ling/bane all in players in GM that barely have 120 APM, the choice of strategy would have had a bigger impact. Basically what you are saying is: Here are the numbers (that i cant verify out of lack of competence in this specific field) that seems to very evidently show that APM is almost purely correlated with skill. I’ll let someone who’s more versed than me in statistics and less biased than you take over this discussion. The funny thing is for all the garbage you post on these forums, i’ve actually never seen anyone poke actual holes at the statistics you make with specific problems. Maybe the analysis is actually right. I have no idea.
You can go back to watching your printer now, genius.
I am probably the only person on these forums who has adamantly defended and attacked all three races at some point. Aligning your opinion with the facts is quite literally the opposite of bias.
BourneKilla once laughed at me for claiming this and challenged me to list the most OP zerg unit. I said it’s the zergling. He said I was a biased clown because there are far more OP units. Yet Zerglings are made in 99.999% of games en masse; some games have nothing but them and some banelings which aid the zerglings in breaking up dense clusters of enemy units and queens which aid in the anti air.
My prediction was that you could nerf every other unit zerg has, and Blizzard has done exactly that, and Zergs will still win at the top level using Zergling counter attacks that wreck mineral lines. It’s 2021 and that prediction is 100% vindicated.
Literally every action in the game is expressed though APM so it really is a measure of the game itself. Is it really that surprising that, since you have to use actions to win and there is a clear incentive to use more actions rather than fewer, there will be a strong correlation? No it is not. Actions are the mode through which you play the game. Every strategy, every micro, every thing that is done in the game is done with actions. The Blizzard analysis in the OP came to a similar conclusion (on page 38):
A Skilled Player Will:
• Resolve supply blocks quickly [a function of APM]
• Tend to both economy and army [a function of APM]
• Utilize the map [a function of APM]
• Know when to commit to a fight [a function of APM]
• Naturally have a higher APM
I once saw a NA protoss player called Hqwanta?, or something similar,he averaged 400-429 APM, and tou won’t see that guy at big tournamentsbecause he was not really good.If APM was skill,then you would suppose he would be a top player.
1 Like
its an average. One outlier doesnt mean the average isnt right.
1 Like
By the way, the game progresses in 1/16th of a second ticks. If you have 100 units, each unit can be commanded 16 times a second, totaling an APM of 96,000. GMs are commanding clusters of units, treating them as groups, which simplifies the micro/management considerably. They also try to look away and shift their focus between units only when needed. However, in order to achieve maximum efficiency, every single unit would have to be micromanaged every single tick of the game.
Humans can never achieve that, however they can and do improve their efficiency by even small increases in their APM and this efficiency maximizes their position in the game regardless of what strategy is being used or the scenario of the game, maximizing the odds that they win regardless of how high or low that maximum is. People with lower APM are operating at a lower efficiency, this equates to lower win-rates in all scenarios by comparison.
So in scenarios where you have the better strategy, you have to be both A) lucky enough to have had the better strategy and B) your strategy must be so much more better that it outweighs the APM advantage. So there will be fewer strategies that you can use which are capable of winning because some are excluded thanks to his APM advantage. Conversely, the reverse happens for him: there are a broader spectrum of strategies that lead to a victory.
If you take the net sum of all these possible outcomes, he comes out ahead thanks to APM.
you have an almost autistic fascination with a dead game. I would suggest finding hobbies outside of watching printers and being a casanova.