Art of War - Part 39 - APM

[Myll Erik]

Welcome to our new series where we will be taking a look at various RTS game-play mechanics and examining what makes certain things work. We will also be discussing various other aspects of the RTS genre, so keep checking back for new topics! Now for some ground rules :

• Stay on Topic
• Keep things as general as possible - this is not a bashing thread! We are now adding in an End of Nations spin!
• This is to encourage thought - therefore well thought out ideas are encouraged!
• Healthy Debate is also encouraged, but flaming/spamming will be dealt with swiftly.

Art of War - Part 39 APM or Actions per Minute

Staying in line with the speed theme from last week - this week I want to talk a bit about Actions Per Minute and explore what that does mean and what it could mean.

Starting off I must say that I'm a big fan of having a game that is difficult to master - and part of that might be having the ability to have a high APM. To me, that should only be a part of a winning recipe and not the deciding factor. Foremost to me is that the player exhibiting the best tactics and strategy in conjunction with solid APM as well as the ability to think ahead of their opponent - those traits should determine the winner and not APM alone.

Often I see players commenting on various RTS games where they feel like they don't have enough to do or that they don't have enough to click. That might be a result of the game or that may be the result of current games focusing too much on APM making players feel as though if they aren't actively clicking 100 things every minute then they are doing bad. Personally - I think this is the wrong mindset to take in to every game, as they are all different.

Like I mentioned earlier - in my opinion - it should be a solid mix of fundamentals not just pure speed that results in a win. This is can be a tricky thing to nail down but when it does happen the game instantly gets that longevity factor that will keep it around for a long time.

This week - I want to hear what you think on APM :

1. Do you enjoy high APM games?

2. Are you focused on APM in games? Will you play a slower game?

3. Whats your thoughts on the amount of APM within End of Nations?

4. Whats your ideal recipe for success involving APM?

[Sydonia]

1. Do you enjoy high APM games?

I do enjoy high APM games but not in an RTS. An RTS should have a burst of actions at an one time during a high stress moment. Firing off a series of abilities in rapid succession to turn the tide early or make a quick escape but not constantly. Having a constantly high APM takes away from the strategy and gives you less time to think about what needs to be done. Having ability burst and micromanagement during intense combat makes it more intense. Having high APM takes away from the excitement of needing fast reactions when it counts.

2. Are you focused on APM in games? Will you play a slower game?

I do focus on keeping moving at all times, but I often during a long move take the time to assess the battlefield, look at where we are pushing what's needed where we aren't and where the enemy is making headway. This adds to the game and makes my contribution to my team more valuable. Though there is something to be said about rushing players into mistakes to keep them on their toes, the RTS genre loses the S when it rushes players too much.

3. Whats your thoughts on the amount of APM within End of Nations?

So far it's great. You have the time during a wipe to decide what you were doing wrong, you have the time during a long move to see if you should maybe change your squad. Whenever I engage the first thing I look at is which abilities aren't on cooldowns and which can I use to take the upper hand quickly. It's a great moment to see a superior force take a quick bashing an retreat to an inferior force just because of the burst done. I have noticed that LF seems to have lower APM compared to SR but that's a unique play style that lends well to their units.

4. Whats your ideal recipe for success involving APM?

Always give the player time to think not minutes just enough so that they can figure out their piece of the puzzle. Give the player options. Everyone gets caught in a bad situation once in a while. Give them tools to make them feel like they can go down with a fight or force and opponent to use their big abilities before your team can back you up, leaving the enemy fodder for the rearguard. You can't have a slow game it'll turn into a grind, but having too high of an APM requirement makes micromanagement a chore.

[Bolivar]

1. Do you enjoy high APM games?

I'm not overly bothered by APM being a variable in the equation of success. It can be a painful learning curve because you simply can't afford to lag behind your opponent if you want to be decent online, but this is real-time strategy, after all, and once you become competent, it's all worth it, because this can be the most rewarding genre of competitive online games.

For most titles, it all comes down to learning the game's system and memorizing the kinds of play styles you're likely to encounter from the community. Once you get up to the average level of knowledge and speed, I would say in the majority of matches, APM won't play too large of a reason in why you lost. Nine times out of ten, when you watch the replay, it's because you didn't take one of their strategies seriously enough at the time or they pulled something that you haven't seen before.

2. Are you focused on APM in games? Will you play a slower game?

I'm not critical of an RTS if there aren't an endless amount of things I could be doing at any given time. I know Blizzard wanted to eliminate the early-game inactivity by implementing the hero and creeping system in Warcraft III. I think that was a mistake. In answering the "problem," they added just one more thing to worry about on top of the usual fundamentals of RTS, and at that point I was not willing to devote myself to learning to play decent in the community. I would say the majority of casual players who picked up that box probably felt the same way.

I'm not sure who these players are that complain if a game doesn't allow for high-APM play, but I'd be willing to bet they're probably the more hardcore segments of the community. Either that, or regular RTS enthusiasts playing a game with a couple design issues. I would ask yourself what kind of player you're trying to bring in to End of Nations. If you want the StarCraft II pro gamers, then, by all means, go all out. But I see EoN more as being a serious competitor to League of Legends, in which case it could be a very big hit and a very profitable title for Trion.

3. Whats your thoughts on the amount of APM within End of Nations?

I know we're not allowed to talk about our beta experiences on these forums, so I'll just comment about my impression with the game style that the public generally knows about. The companies are relatively small, up to about 12 units max that one player can have on the field at any given time. That's really only enough to counter 1-2 unit types, and do decent if a third or fourth shows up. That's really not enough for scouting and unless Petroglyph surprises everyone by releasing unforeseen content, there's no base-building, in-game teching, or resource gathering to worry about.

Since it really comes down to capturing control points and engaging enemies with a relatively small force, I don't think APM will be that demanding in End of Nations. Micromanaging unit-targeting and using abilities as they refresh probably won't make for an overly brutal clickfest. That being said, I know there can be a lot of downtime when moving across the map or changing your company and getting back into the action. So this is one scenario where I could see the most hardcore players having not enough to click, given the small size of the companies and only allowed one at a time. But for majority of players, I think they will appreciate this time to analyze what just happened and brainstorm on how to turn things around.

4. Whats your ideal recipe for success involving APM?

If you're asking about how APM plays into my success rate in RTS games, I would reiterate what I said above. Just learning the system and how people in the community play eventually allows me to take actions as second nature and once I can get just fast enough, strategy and creativity play much larger roles.

If you're asking how I think a game can hit that sweet spot of having enough actions to do but not overloading the player's brain, I think it comes down to having multiple keys to success that are all roughly equally important.. I always saw the "four corners" of RTS being scouting, base-building (turtling), resource-gathering and the actual fighting. Every player puts a different amount of focus on these different variables, and since none of them alone are sufficient to win in any situation, it takes more than a high APM to be successful. You have to decide how you're going to personalize your strategy: what you're going to focus on and what you're going to leave to the side.

But then again, if a player can function at a high APM for all of those aspects, then they're a freak and you have no business expecting to win against them