UC Berkeley Starcraft Class, Week 1
Thursday, January 29, 2009 at 9:45PM 
A screenshot of how StarCraft looked early in development.Tonight I attended the much-talked-about StarCraft class at UC Berkeley as an observer. (Insert StarCraft joke about Observers.)
The main lecturer is the young Alan Feng. Mr. Feng is a physics student who says he's been playing StarCraft "for 2.5 years, 6 months on the pro level." He also had help leading the class from a guy named Yosh (I forget his real name, but I call people by their chosen names anyway), and a third guy who I only remember as Mumbling Guy. I would call Feng by his gaming name too, but I forgot what it was because he only said it once.
Feng and Yosh are an interesting contrast. Feng is endearingly highfalutin while Yosh is an old-timer (StarCraft-wise) who tells the young-uns how it used to be. Feng began the class this way:
There are not more than five musical notes, yet the combinations of these five give rise to more melodies than can ever be heard.
There are not more than five primary colors, yet in combination they produce more hues than can ever been seen.
There are not more than five cardinal tastes, yet combinations of them yield more flavors than can ever be tasted.
In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack: the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers.
--Sun Tzu
And he added:
In Starcraft, there are only three races, but more gameplay remaining than can be explored.
There was then a long stretch of administrative debris about notecards we were to turn in, about what percentage of the final grade the homework is worth, and other such banalities. Notably though, 40% of the final grade comes from the final project where students must attempt to make a new contribution to the StarCraft community in the form of an analysis of some part of the game. These final papers will be public and subject to peer review--no doubt incredibly merciless peer review, given the tone of most gaming communities.
Feng then gave us a short history lesson about the release of StarCraft. It was announced in 1995, though it didn't release until 1997. Feng showed us graphs and stats of how many people had computers back then, what power they were, how many had internet access, and so on. His point was that StarCraft had a dramatically larger chance for success in 1997 than it did in 1995, so their delay was fortuitous.
As an aside, I'll point out that this involved Microsoft Powerpoint slides. One student asked if the slides would be available and Feng said no, that the slides don't contain anything useful except pictures anyway. That's an interesting statement and he's right. I hope presenters will learn that Powerpoint slides are a generally terrible way of conveying information. Especially if they have terrible typography and blocky graphs as these did. (Apple Keynote can at least look nice.) But whatever, let's move on.
Yosh then gave us 20 or 25 minutes of reminiscing about the history of the best StarCraft players. Almost everyone he mentioned is Korean, of course. I felt I had something in common with Yosh as he told us he's been playing and following his game for 10 years now, competing in tournaments and trying to improve.
He explained how various players evolved or changed the game. Boxer's initial dominance gave hope for Terran players in the early days. In fact, when asked who in the room is a Terran player because of Boxer, several students raised their hands. (Nerdy joke: is Boxer overpowered in every game?) Apparently Boxer went to the army for 2 years, and although he didn't get to play as much there, he still did play and the army cadets created a special army StarCraft team, just so he could keep playing. When he returned to the game, he made up for his generally weaker game by becoming much more bold, and pulling off insane strategies that no one else would use, like a fake base in the middle of the map.
Yosh told us about the personalities of several players. One of them he said never smiles or frowns or makes any expression at all...except for the one in the picture he showed us. Another has bravado, another was extremely effeminate. Some were known for their micro-management skills, others for their creativity, others for their consistency. One top player is called "cheater Terran" because he always seems to have more units than you'd think he'd be able to at any given time. It seems that "every gaming community is a weird mirror image of every other gaming community."
After this walk down memory lane of Korean Starcraft champions, Yosh let Feng take over for the last leg of the lecture. Feng talked about the different kinds of resources in the game. There are raw resources, which he defines as those that the Starcraft game construct knows about. Minerals, gas, population limit, creep/pylon fields, energy (for casting psionic storm, etc). There are also physical resources, which he defines as things outside the game that exist in the physical world (perhaps a misnomer?). These are things like attention (arguably the most important one in StarCraft), APM: actions per minute (arguably the one that a supposed strategy game should NOT focus on at all), physical endurance, state of mind, knowledge of the game, analysis, etc. I asked him to add yomi to the list, the ability to read the opponent's mind. He did not know the term, but I had earlier given him my book, so I'm sure he will soon. Yes he said, ability to read the opponent is another resource to draw on that exists outside the game construct.
Then there are what Feng calls transformational resources. These are things you convert raw or physical resources into other resources. The most common one is simply your "army." You use your APM (clicking speed skills) along with minerals and gas and time, and you convert all that into units that compose your army. That army is capable of taking over territory or killing enemy units or defending a new expansions, etc.
Feng's point here is a good one. He's trying to get the students to think of the game as a big collection of resources and your decisions are about how to shift those resources around. It's easy to overlook how many resources are really involved in a decision, and if you overlook some, you aren't understanding the real implications of your decision. For example, if your population limit is 131/131, what do you do? As it stands, you cannot build more units. Should you build pylons? That means spending minerals and time. Should you attack with units you already have? That means spending units and possibly more of your attention resource. How long will it take the units to attack and trade with the enemy units? Did you scout enough to know what you'll be up against and what important thing you could attack?
Another example he gave was using raw resources to cover for a lack of physical resources. If you have very bad reaction time and you know this, then you are aware that in a surprise attack on your peons (resource gatherers), you might lose more than you really should. It might be worth it to spend minerals to build some cannons back there so that less depends on your slower reaction time. It's a tradeoff that might be worth it depending on your particular play skills.
The last example he gave was that of defending a choke point. If you control a choke point and put some cannons near it, but the enemy does not attack there, what have you spent and what have you gained? You spent time and minerals of course, but Feng was saying we shouldn't be so hasty in saying that we gained nothing. We did gain some resources here. If there is a pylon there, we increased our population limit. We also have vision to that part of the map. That means we have slightly better overall information about where the enemy is (or isn't, in this case). We prevented the enemy from scouting here, so the enemy has a slightly worse mental picture of the map. We control some territory that might not otherwise control (whatever is behind the choke point). So really there are a lot of resources to consider here, even in this very simple example where no one even attacked anyone.
And that was it for week one. A class about StarCraft at UC Berkeley.
--Sirlin
Reader Comments (238)
Sirlin, i'm starting to doubt that you've even played Starcraft, or any RTS game for that matter.
If you had you would realize some basic issues:
- 300 or 400 APM is not PHYSICALLY demanding for most gamers, it is MENTAL
- You can be a highly skilled player with only 100 apm, and among the best in the world with 200.
- Nobody has more than 200 effective APM. This doesn't include repeated clicks or useless actions.
Starcraft is not a "button masher". An experienced SC player could use a touchpad and no keyboard to destroy a new player. Do you know what kind of APM a player using a touchpad has? Its like 50, maybe less.
Intervigilum: again with the "frame rate limit"?? What frame rate limit are you talking about in Street Fighter? Street Fighter detects inputs at 1/60 of a second, and requires that kind of precise timing constantly. StarCraft is designed to be played over the net with lag and doesn't have the kind of 1/60th of a second precision. It's not a value judgment, it's just the nature of a game designed for the internet and a game designed for local play. Stop saying fighting games are "limited by the framerate.' That is a nonsense statement.
Next, you don't have to remind anyone that StarCraft is a "real-TIME strategy" game. (It's me who has to remind you that it's a "real-time STRATEGY game.) You're constructing a strawman argument against a point no one ever made. We all know it's real-time, we all like the game played at a fast speed (exactly how fast is debated), and we all recognize time as a resource. By reminding us of this, you contribute nothing because both sides of the argument already agree that time is an important resource.
FWmeh: I wasn't aware anyone had any trouble figuring out useless clicks in StarCraft. All you have to do is show the game to a non-Starcraft player, preferably someone who is a UI designer, and tell them to create the best UI they can. I'm pretty sure they would not decide that if you have 3 templars in a group and press the psi storm button, that the player would want all three storms to uselessly overlap. You tried to attack the obvious idea of "we should have good UI" by a slimy argument tactic where you pretend I am making arbitrary decisions. You imply that "Sirlin thinks he knows what the useless clicks are, but why listen to him? Or anyone? Therefore we must stay with the status quo." Come on, don't sink to that level of discourse, it's pathetic.
How about this? You list for me the clicks in StarCraft that don't correspond to a decision. Or list any obvious failings that a UI designer would point to. This is so tiring arguing with bad-UI-apologists. Why even bother? I don't care anymore. You want terrible UI, you lack the vision to imagine a game with good UI that also has good gameplay, I get it. We're still mostly getting "arguing with the premise" and "I can't imagine solutions therefore they don't exist" rather than anything constructive.
Heathen: So you're a status-quo apologist who would design a new game with intentionally bad UI (meaning extra clicks that don't involve decisions). Great, ok. Stop telling me what games I have or have not played. It's irrelevant anyway, because me playing even more StarCraft would not change your bad-UI apologist stance.
And what are all of you guys going to do when this kid: http://www.ktvu.com/news/18608582/detail.html# shows up and starts knocking you all around with 500+ APM?
Sirlin, has any other blog post ever received this many comments? I can't remember one off the top of my head.
Re: Zelc
The Dune 2 analogy is not flawed. An analogy makes a comparison to illustrate a point. The Dune 2 analogy has the additional goal of forcing people to firmly identify how much they value "mindless APM" versus the mental aspects of the game. In that sense, it worked:
"For Dune 2, its interface makes the cost of attacking too high."
The Dune 2 argument is flawed, and can be easily demonstrated as such with a simple graph. An argument tries to prove a point, rather than just illustrate it. But I never made the Dune 2 argument =P.
[quote]It's me who has to remind you that it's a "real-time STRATEGY game.)[/quote]
As opposed to a real time tactics game. And what is the difference between those games? It has nothing to do with execution vs decision making or with tactics vs strategy.
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 analogy (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 analogy 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 analogy 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.
Urr, shoot. I read Phantom's post and for some reason got analogy and argument confused (and even thanked Phantom for telling me to use argument instead of analogy!). Oops :). Pretend I said argument if you want to be precise.
I'd like to clarify something. I'm not necessarily against making UI improvements, I want to point out considerations for why automatically using the easiest UI is not a good idea in making a game like Starcraft. It's indeed possible that an alternative for stuff like screen-time can be found, and MBS can be implemented without sacrificing screen-time. Until such an alternative is found, though, designers and fans should keep in mind the true trade-offs involved in UI improvements.
"We need to split attention" does not logically imply "We need mndless APM tasks." There are other solutions to that problem.
When you tell your worker to mine, it's not just pressing a button, you HAVE to take your screen away from any battle going on because the mineral patch you want to mine has to be on your screen to perform the action. This necessarily means your screen is NOT watching any battles that might be happening more than a screen's length away from that mineral patch. Figuring out when your opponent is looking at his base clicking a building location/mineral patch/etc. and capitalizing on it is a part of the game. An RTS doesn't necessarily need this, but I don't know if a starcraft game would still be a starcraft game without this, and I am not the only one who thinks so.
For completitions sake here is Zelcs post on this issue on Teamliquid.net
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=87298
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.
"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."
this is a pretty blatant value judgement. Thesel "mindless" actions are a well established part of the RTS genre, and a lot of people who enjoy a plethora of strategy games clearly think starcraft IS fun. I realize that they don't necessarily have to be a part of every RTS game, but to suggest that anyone with any sense and a taste for strategy games will necessarily agree that any game that tests dexterity should also be devoid of strategy is kind of childish.
Dude, unentschieden, I posted that on page 7 :P.
Sirlin & Supporters: Stop complaining about a game that has barely been reworked over its 10 year life and yet remains one of the most competitive games in the world. Your analogies, to be honest, are ridiculous. Your arguments are flawed. You blatantly disregard the words of other people and substitute it with misconceptions that you fancy, and attack the writer themself. Sirlin, I'm severely disappointed in the way you have responded to these arguments and have lost a ton of respect for you. Never touch Starcraft and go back to Street Fighter, it'd be the good for all of us.
I know that you'll probably not allow this comment to be posted, but that's your choice and shows your immaturity more than it does anyone else's
I've lost a ton of respect for you too, 000.
I have exposed many fallacies here and 000 comes along and says I should stop personal attacks while in the same comment making a personal attack of "never touch Starcraft again." Stick to issues, like why you're content with your game being a lowly physical sport when it has a chance to be reinvented to have more of a focus on strategy while still remaining fast. Why does this notion cause you to appear out of no where just to post hateful things and no content? And your no-content hate post also indicates to me that if the UI designer of your next RTS came up to you and said "I found a good way to let the player do what he wants" you'd say no, we need a bad UI to make the game good.
To the rest: while your screen is viewing mining, you could mine faster. While you screen is viewing units building, they could build faster. Or alternatively, if you view the first couple seconds of a unit being built, it gets some sort of bonus. It's possible to create attention-splitting mechanics that require no APM tax at all. If the decision is so important to build vs micromanage a battle, then let all players make that important decision on equal footing, rather than reward the click speed in a "strategy" game. I'll put the usual disclaimer in every post now: I'm not saying ideal click speed is turn based. We all agree the game played fairly fast is fun. It's when click speed becomes so fast that it locks other players out that strategy is hurt for no good reason.
Why does everyone keep saying that Sirlin's argument is "APM is a mindless skill that adds no strategy"? He's posted several times that he understands how the high amount of clicking in SC creates depth. He's ACTUALLY arguing "we can make a game with a good UI that also has interesting competitive depth".
BTW, a lot of Starcraft's clicking IS mindless. Mindless as in "I know I want to do X, which requires many steps that a good UI would eliminate", not mindless as in "a physical skill that leads to zero strategy" (we already know that SC's minimal interface creates certain depth). The issue is that he wants to see an RTS where the depth/strategy is derived from more interesting properties than the sheer number of clicks the game requires.
What's with all the strawman arguments? Is anybody even reading his posts?
@Sirlin: Wow, that's a great idea. It could create the screen-time resource with multi-building selection. Balance would be pretty important here because we don't want it to be so rewarding that players never look at battles for fear of missing the bonus, but that could be tweaked during testing. It also adds interesting depth to base design. It also creates a big advantage for the defender, as he can micro and provide the advantage to his workers/buildings at the same time.
I doubt this would provide a cap on MUAPM, unless it's the degenerative case where this bonus is so good you can't look at battles. Still, it would allow for the removal of mindless APM without losing the screen-time resource.
> 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.
Earlier in this thread, APM was used for the strictly physical component, and DPM -- decisions per minute -- was used for the mental part. (At least, some used it that way) Anyways, that's a minor semantic point; I'll use your terminology.
You argue that the only real limitation to APM is the mental component -- how fast you can think and make decisions. You argue that the physical component is not the bottleneck at high levels of play, and it is an easy barrier to surmount.
So, doesn't it necessarily follow that you should be in favor of _decreasing_ the physical component of APM? (as long as the mental component is unaffected, anyways) After all, you argue that the physical barrier is easily crossed, and not a factor at high levels of play... so why should it even be there?
I don't really see where personal attacks have been an issue here, 000. I myself have named names in posts only to clarify with which ARGUMENTS I took issue and wished to discuss further, not to insult or degrade individuals themselves. I take pretty much everyone reading the articles posted here to be pretty intelligent people interested in making games better. I think Sirlin and the other Pro Useful UI MUAPM supporters are in similar boats from what I've read, and I'm sure would apologize if you took it that way.
As redundant as it is, neither I nor (from what I gather) any of the other MUAPMs here don't disagree on the following points:
1. Quickness should be rewarded in competitive gaming
2. He who can multitask better in an RTS should be at an advantage
3. Therefore, high APM's *AREN'T BAD*
I'm not sure where the argument digressed into this notion that several people here see APM as an evil thing and then where it got to be taken as a personal attack on all competitive SC players. I think SC is a great game, I wish I was better at it so that I could be a part of that community as it has clearly withstood the test of time.
What was originally being argued and continues to be the desired point of contention is that it is alienating for players to have to pay a "tax" of memorizing tons of keyboard shortcuts for what, in a modern-day RTS UI, takes two or three physical keystrokes/clicks. It takes new players a lot of practice to even get to the "real game" that's "under the hood" of Starcraft, meaning several hours of training on purely mechanical things totally unrelated to gameplay. After that, you get to practice strategies, learn different unit matchups, train yourself to make RELEVANT game decisions quickly etc., the game everyone really wants to play. It is NOT the only game guilty of this, it isn't a BAD game at all, like I said, I recognize that its a fantastic game, but that aside, it is still guilty of being more difficult to use than a modern game ought to be.
That's really all that's being argued. Does anyone seriously object to that?
@Hurkyl: My previous point was that mindless APM is important for another reason as well, that is screen-time. Of course, Sirlin's shown that it's not necessary for screen-time as a resource, so I think I need to concede...