|
|
3.873
I expect someone to get under 2.
|
Under 2 would be retarded. You would just have to get an insane break on the blocks. ie have them all line up perfectly.
I don't recall anyone ever getting below 4 last time we did these threads, so I really don't see where the "I expect someone to get 1.xxx" is coming from, but ok.
|
Well getting under 4 was pretty easy, and I haven't played anything requiring mouse coordination in over a year. Considering this is a forum for a game requiring ridiculous speed and accuracy, I expect some far better scores.
|
On February 10 2008 15:06 SonuvBob wrote: Well getting under 4 was pretty easy, and I haven't played anything requiring mouse coordination in over a year. Considering this is a forum for a game requiring ridiculous speed and accuracy, I expect some far better scores.
I haven't either. I've been playing Dota for the last year and a half (much less speed/accuracy than BW). But a sub-4 score still took me about 15-20 tries to get. And like I said, the last few times I can recall these threads being done, I don't recall scores that were sub-4 seconds. I remember some 4.1s, 4.2s and the like, and we had some really good players doing it. As I said in the original post, rekrul was close to breaking 3.xxx.
But saying someone will get 1.xxx? That is just out of hand. 2.xxx MAYBE. A mid to low 3 would be really impressive, and a 2.9 would be redic. But I really can't see a sub-2 second score.
|
best i did was 4.045 seconds
there's an awful lot of luck involved in getting a really good time, if a sequence is physically close to each other then it's easier to read and takes much less time to click
if anyone is really bent on getting a good time at this you might want to know you can keep clicking even if you get blinded by a misclick
|
Yea, sometimes you just have to keep going until you get some good breaks. But it is completely random, so it isn't like we aren't all getting both good and bad breaks.
|
|
|
Well, I think for the best scores you are really looking to just not get a missclick at all. I think my best scores all involved seamlessly going from block to block without clicking wrong or going the wrong way accidentally and having to change direction. At that point, I think it really is just a matter of how the blocks fall to shave of tenths of a second, which is why I am really skeptical of a 1.xxx score.
|
Getting a sub 2-second score would be clicking faster than 450 APM...
|
If my 120apm ass can get 3.33, I'm sure someone can do far better.
|
On February 10 2008 15:18 p4fn2w wrote: Getting a sub 2-second score would be clicking faster than 450 APM... someone call nada
|
On February 10 2008 15:23 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2008 15:18 p4fn2w wrote: Getting a sub 2-second score would be clicking faster than 450 APM... someone call nada
ROFL!!
I got 4.7
|
|
|
Didn't see pumpkins 2.899.
Is there an SS of that one?
|
On September 28 2005 20:12 Pumpkin wrote:Sure, i'll try to get the program working tommorow if i have time. With that said, i've broken 3 ! Props to the other guy with 2.988, he wasn't lying about the " You cheat beotch!!!! ". 2.899 I'm almost there: http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6715/game2907tk9.png
|
4 point something I sux! T_T
|
On February 10 2008 15:19 SonuvBob wrote: If my 120apm ass can get 3.33, I'm sure someone can do far better. well, peak apm would be a better indicator for this game, remember us slow noobs tends to go several seconds without doing anything useful once the lategame rolls in
|
Zanno is correct about peak being a more accurate measure for something like this.
Just because you are 120 apm over a 30-60 minute game doesn't mean you are slow for the 3-5 seconds that this game takes.
|
Apm doesn't really mean anything here, I was joking about that :p. But my accuracy is shit and I've gotten near the "record". <2 seconds may not happen, but I'm sure someone w/better accuracy can at least get under 2.5 on a lucky board.
|
On February 10 2008 16:13 SonuvBob wrote: Apm doesn't really mean anything here, I was joking about that :p. But my accuracy is shit and I've gotten near the "record". <2 seconds may not happen, but I'm sure someone w/better accuracy can at least get under 2.5 on a lucky board.
Yea. The issue is you have to be consistent as well. I am sometimes less accurate than optimal, so sometimes I will get like a 4.3 or something and be like "fuck, that was a retarded break, I could have had sub 3 there." I have yet to crack below 3.6 though.
Out of curiousity, what kind of mouse are you using? I am using a Razer Diamondback. I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference, but I would imagine with a 400 DPI mouse or something it would be much more difficult than with a gaming mouse such as one of Razer's products that has 1600-2000 dpi
|
|
sigh... this is like playing starcraft. I somehow always manage to click on everything except what I intended to click.
|
I cant get below 5 
wooo 4.6
|
On February 10 2008 16:33 B1nary wrote: sigh... this is like playing starcraft. I somehow always manage to click on everything except what I intended to click. Try going slow for a few, just trying to be accurate, then ramp it up to crazy speed.
|
mx500's are only 800 dpi max? I was not aware of that.
Shrug, I guess they are better than a random microsoft mouse. I would probably kill myself trying to play that game with a standard microsoft mouse (although I guess nowadays they are starting to make some pretty solid optical mice) or even worse a trackball.
|
the 2.808 video was pretty ballin. It was pretty much perfect. There were obviously no missclicks, and I couldn't see any accidental wrong directional movement by the mouse, so the reads were all good too.
Well played sir, well played.
|
Yea, you really need to go slow for a bit to get used to reading where you need to go next (while simultaneously clicking the numbers you are on now). Once you get down being able to read the placement of the numbers with your peripheral vision and figuring out where you need to go next, it gets alot easier and you can speed up. If you are just clicking a box and then looking for the next one, you are already too slow. You want to be looking for the next ones while you are doing the moving to the current one and clicking. This is where the 3 colors come in handy. I can't imagine how hard this game would be if all the boxes were the same color instead of grouped by fives into 3 colors.
|
There was some hesitation and a near-miss (9-10), probably could've shaved 1-200ms off of it. I'm definitely not going to try to top it though. :p
|
This makes me think I need a new mouse, or i'm just hella slow either one. My best was 4.582 but my accuracy is pretty terrible.
|
I can only get a little above 5 seconds.... then again its 3 am ;p
|
On February 10 2008 16:53 Jonoman92 wrote: This makes me think I need a new mouse, or i'm just hella slow either one. My best was 4.582 but my accuracy is pretty terrible. What exactly makes you think that you need a new mouse though? SonuvBob seems to have done fine with an "old, semi-broken MX500 (at either 400 or 800dpi)."
My best time was 3.9~ with a really old logitech mini. I am slow though. Nice video by the way SonuvBob. That was insane.
|
to play your "best" you probably process the number with the aid of the color.. there are 3 set of colors..
-initially you find 1 and take note on its color.. you use that color to zone out only to that color and find the next number.. -repeat starting with the next smallest integer.
my highest score is 3~.. ( dont have a good mouse and 3 hour over my normal bedtime)
|
|
Germany2896 Posts
6.9 I am teh winrar
|
word of advice to the geeks, im not saying that i am great, it is a sarcastic comment. I do not claim superior paint skills.
|
|
after some struggling i got 3.95, and I usually suck at these mouse speed games compared to other tlers. Wonder how come noone got any faster last time...
|
I'm bad, got 6s on the first try and now after a bit of practice I can only get around 4s TT
On February 10 2008 23:08 Cascade wrote: after some struggling i got 3.95, and I usually suck at these mouse speed games compared to other tlers. Wonder how come noone got any faster last time... 2.8~ was the record last time.
|
ok, 2.8 would make a lot more sense. The op claims to not recall far sub 4 though. typo maybe. I think rekrul could get well below 4 in just a few minutes as well. Maybe he was on a touchpad? 
And let me try a hijack and advertise the only mouse speed game I've seen that uses also the keyboard at the same time as chasing targets with the mouse.
ClickMeR
sinse we've had a few viruses on here lately, and this game has to be downloaded, I'll also link to an older post with the same link for credibilty. :/
My record at normal speed with left click + letters is 750 000 at level 10 with 192 apm. Try to beat it.
|
|
SonuvBob you make me cum.
|
There isn't an emoticon on TL that can summarize my feelings about that.
|
On February 11 2008 09:53 SonuvBob wrote: There isn't an emoticon on TL that can summarize my feelings about that.

|
Better than I guess.
=/
|
joohyunee
Korea (South)1087 Posts
|
On February 10 2008 22:08 meRz wrote: rofl i got 6 :/ same
|
On February 11 2008 13:26 SonuvBob wrote:Better than  I guess. =/
I've never seen that smiley used so inappropriately before
|
On February 11 2008 14:00 fusionsdf wrote:I've never seen that smiley used so inappropriately before
haha it really does look like it. especially at the end :/
|
|
i can't seem to regularly break 3...low 4's seems to be the average for a good one. Best: 3.829
|
unless you have video proof a lot of low times i dont beleive, at home my best is 3.049, i went to uni today and on its laggy connection it took me about 5 seconds but it said i completed it in 1.3, i can get a screenshot of it tomorrow, or try for a 0.something time if anyones interested :p
|
Someone show show this to the guys in the OGS/Liquid house, would be pretty interesting.
Tried a few times, 3.4 is my best, pretty sure a lot of this is based on luck though.
|
I used to play this back in 2004 or something. I got very close to scoring a time under 3s (got like 3.0X) but never managed it =(( I think you have to get a good placement of the numbers to get a good time
|
I feel like a fool, but i got to 4.84 and i am very happy i finally got that. Listening to fast paced music helps a lot actually. that music on the game doesn't do it for me.
|
The link is dead, and there was no point of a 3+ year old bump, I'm surprised he didn't get a warn or anything. But on a brighter note, does anyone have a working link to this game? I can't seem to find any
|
|
The lag situation reminds me of a few older games I set some ridiculous high scores on by purposely lagging it to all hell, it's impossible to get a real gauge on skill in these just from the differing lag from comp to comp.
|
Can't get under 4, first time was a 3.9 but after that it went up to 6 lol.
|
yay got 3.95 after like 30 tries
it was just a matter of having the same colored blocks placed near each other so i don't have to search around as much
edit: k just got 3.5, not playing anymore...
|
damn i'm terrible at this peak out in mid 3's, high 3's/low 4's on average something like 3.4xx was my record boo
|
Thank you
|
WOO!
I'm flowin' like a BEAST!
edit - 100th post for great justice
edit edit -- just did the calculation. That's ~264 apm.
edit edit edit -- new record!
|
Not found/crashed:
|
I remember a guy named "PerfectionistEmblem" on YouTube that used to do Warcraft 3 commentaries would always use an intro of him playing this game. If memory serves right I think he got like 1.8 or something ridiculous on it.
He deleted all of his videos, otherwise I would link one.
|
|
I'm so bad, only getting low 5's :p
|
link is not working for me =O
|
how good is 11 seconds on a touchpad?
|
what the fuck, how are you all so fast?
I can't do this in under 6 seconds lol
|
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/LcSCh.jpg) Using my face - cheek to move, chin to click, new competition?
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/JgX0e.jpg) Using my foot
|
:3
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MN1Ju.png)
I believe that I now have the second fastest time after Sonuvbob now, thank you very much *nerd pride*
|
|
On April 29 2011 11:18 zakmaa wrote: I remember a guy named "PerfectionistEmblem" on YouTube that used to do Warcraft 3 commentaries would always use an intro of him playing this game. If memory serves right I think he got like 1.8 or something ridiculous on it.
He deleted all of his videos, otherwise I would link one.
That was me, it was 2.35 I used it in my intro and youtube took down the videos sadly 
Thanks for remembering!
|
zzzzzz I can't get to 3 seconds =(. Always 4. something. Need to get used to my new mouse settings
|
On December 31 2011 07:43 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 11:18 zakmaa wrote: I remember a guy named "PerfectionistEmblem" on YouTube that used to do Warcraft 3 commentaries would always use an intro of him playing this game. If memory serves right I think he got like 1.8 or something ridiculous on it.
He deleted all of his videos, otherwise I would link one. That was me, it was 2.35 I used it in my intro and youtube took down the videos sadly  Thanks for remembering!
I remember your videos as well, sucks that they got taken down.
|
|
|
|