That is valid when it comes to unit control, for creep spread, and for several other things that require distinct control and inputs; but it is not valid for producing units in batches or for other cases where batch input is possible. Those particular sources of APM inflation needs to be accounted for and factored out for APM to mean anything.
1 Like
Nah he endorsed it. He’s been complaining about how APM can’t measure skill due to spam. Then he admitted EPM filters spam.
Now he’s backtracking and saying EPM doesn’t measure skill despite having already admitted it isn’t affected by spam and presenting no other objections.
Basically spam was the only thing he could think of for why APM is invalid, and he accidentally let it slip that EPM filters out spam.
LUL, BatZ was self-appointed the BabaYaga press-secretary.
Again: how much you torture mouse-keyboard is not a measure of skill (spam or not spam).
See the Terranicll and other good-posters explanations on the matter.
Your theory predicts a person with 1 EPM will have the same winrate as a person with 1000 EPM.
Do you care to revise your theory, since it is clearly wrong?
That claim is an obvious strawman.
It’s like claiming humans shouldn’t drink water because you’ll die if you chug 12 gallons of it down your throat.
2 Likes
Ah yes Mr “My theory doesn’t have to be right to be right” is here to explain how Goba’s theory doesn’t have to be right to be right. Lmao.
Goba said EPM doesn’t indicate skill, period. That IS a prediction that 1 EPM will yield the same win-rate as 1000 EPM, which is blatantly false. The total number of actions you can take during a game is decided by how many EPM you have, and with 1 EPM you could build 1 barracks in 1 minute and then at the second minute mark you could make 1 marine. That is obviously going to lose vs someone who has a 1000 EPM budget who is able to perform 1000x more tasks.
Every action in the game is actuated through EPM which means every skill in the game goes through EPM. EPM is quite literally a measurement of literally every skill in the game. People with more EPM are more skilled.
Your theory has to make correct predictions in order to be true. Sorry that makes you so upset.
nope. take 1st minute of the game as zerg.
workers split: 4-8 actions
5 workers: 10 actions
hatchery: 2 actions
overlord: 2 actions
scout with overlord: 2 actions
so this is 24 effective actions in 1st minutes of the game.
if u waste 2x of actions - 48 apm in 1st minute of the game.
so if player apm lower than 24 - he is bad.
and if player apm more than 50 - he bad too(he waste too much clicks)
so, ho many ml+ players dont spam in 1st minutes over 100 apm? 0.001%?
so. coz almost every player spamming apm - this is not about game skill, this is about spamming skill.
and spamming skill not correlated with game skill
3 Likes
“I am going to assume the player with superior APM is going to waste APM but that same assumption isn’t going to be applied to the player with worse APM”.
This is known as a special pleading fallacy. If you have to hold different standards to get different conclusions, then your scenarios aren’t different enough to get those different conclusions on their own.
Here is a logically correct scenario:
-
Player A and player B are equally likely to waste APM at a 30% chance. (<-- this fixes your special pleading fallacy).
-
Player A has 100 APM. Player B has 10 APM.
-
Player A can do 100*0.7=70 useful actions per minute.
-
Player B can do 10*0.7=7 useful actions per minute.
Obviously, doing 10x more useful actions means you will have a >99% win-rate against your opponent.
1 Like
no
player A didnt spam. but he could click at 400 apm
so his apm in 1st minute will be 40, in 2nd 60. but in fights - 400
player B spamming. hes apm in 1st minute 400, 2nd minute 400, in fights - still 400.
so average apm(and epm coz its still affected by spamming) of player B will be higher. but they both played on exactly same skill level.
2 Likes
“If I assume a player spams it is proof the player spams”.
This is called a circular argument sweetie. You need to do a lot better than this.
my apm in 1st minute of the game - 60.
but after 1st minute of the game all my workers placed ideally and i did everything i need.
but my opponent with 300 apm cant even split workers 2 per close mineral patch.
he better than me? no. but his apm higher
1 Like
We’ve been over this already:
You’re assuming the player with more APM is more wasteful to prove your point that having more APM doesn’t indicate more skill (because it’s more wasteful).
That’s both a special pleading argument (different standards for different scenarios) and circular reasoning (APM doesn’t indicate skill because of spam → here is a scenario where I assume spam happens → it is proof APM doesn’t indicate skill → here is a scenario where I assume spam happens → etc).
this is no about %
number of actions u need to do is limited. so every click above ideal execution is wasted.
and game cant calculate it. ur epm in 1st minute of the game could be 150. but u need only 50 for perfect play.
so we cant use apm/epm for anything
2 Likes
Uh, no. The number of actions in SC2 are virtually infinite.
again. take 1st minute of the game and do some math
1 Like
With infinite APM you could kill your opponent using nothing but your starting workers in the first minute of the game.
u cant win 12(13) workers vs 17
1 Like
Yes you can and I have. I’ve also seen Puck do it all the way to the GM level. APM is 95% of SC2.
thats not about apm. thats about iq. if ur opponent cant stack - u win.
2 Likes
No it’s entirely about APM. You pull 8 workers and leave 4 mining. You are going to be fighting from a disadvantage. You stack your workers in his mineral line and hit any of his workers that come close. In theory if you have enough APM as the defender you too could stack 8 (or more) workers and still have several mining.
Most people don’t have the APM to both keep their mining workers away from the stack of enemy workers while also keeping their own stack of fighting workers stacked properly.
As I stated, APM is 95% of SC2.