A friend (ChibiZerg) recently linked me to this website which gives you a test for your reaction time and I wanted to share and see if other fellow teamliquidians were interested in giving it a shot.
The test is rather standard, click on the screen when it changes from red to green.
And after 5 clicks it will give you an option to add yourself to the leaderboard.
My reaction time was 200.8 ms on average after 5 clicks. I'm currently a low Master League level player. Very interested to see what other people will score and whether it has a direct link to the league they are in. How much does your innate reaction time contribute to your ability to play SC2.
There's a bunch of other tests on the site too which I haven't gotten a chance to look at yet.
270-ish ms after 5 clicks. Mid Platinum player. I used to be a competitive Counterstrike player, however, but my strengths were in my dragshots and general aiming, not reaction time >_<
Considering bnet itself has a few hundred ms lag built in I'd say it doesnt matter much at all! If you can react to something within 1/4 of a second you are more than apt to play this game at the highest possible level
I find it's more of a blend of finding the perfect spot on your mouse and then clicking then pure reaction time....as soon as I found the "sweet spot" on my mouse my time improved a lot.
In short, as long as your reaction time is faster than 500, you're eligible to be playing SCII. Any faster doesn't make you any better. For references, around 250 and low dimaond.
Has anyone here played around Cal-M/CEVO level Counterstike, or just high-level competitive FPS in general? I'm curious if there's any correlation there.
Average of 270 (high diamond). Is it possible for me to blame that on the fact I got a ~5$ mouse? Feels like this is a thing that could be quite affected by what mouse you have.
On March 28 2011 14:12 HolyArrow wrote: Has anyone here played around Cal-M/CEVO level Counterstike, or just high-level competitive FPS in general? I'm curious if there's any correlation there.
I used to, and you'll find that most people are around 190-200 ms in CS. Doesn't matter much though unless you're an awper.
On March 28 2011 14:12 HolyArrow wrote: Has anyone here played around Cal-M/CEVO level Counterstike, or just high-level competitive FPS in general? I'm curious if there's any correlation there.
I'm roughly CAL-M level in CSS without the broken hand at the moment. With my left hand, reaction time is like 238ms T_T
But reaction time doesn't play a MASSIVE role in how good you are, it's also about clue and aim, much like SC2 is about clue and clicks ^^
Well, 3 runs and I've played in top 20 all three times so good enough for me. Would like to see other people in top 10 or so actually do it more than once.
252 lol, I'm surprised how fast people are getting. I woulda thought my reflexes were pretty good, considering i play badminton so much, which can be very fast paced.
6th! Not too shabby. I use a wireless mouse and don't see why it would be that much slower, though. Does it take a significant amount of time for the signal to travel over?
Edit: I can't play SC2 or any other game because either my comp is too bad or I just cannot buy it.
On March 28 2011 14:12 HolyArrow wrote: Has anyone here played around Cal-M/CEVO level Counterstike, or just high-level competitive FPS in general? I'm curious if there's any correlation there.
I'm roughly CAL-M level in CSS without the broken hand at the moment. With my left hand, reaction time is like 238ms T_T
But reaction time doesn't play a MASSIVE role in how good you are, it's also about clue and aim, much like SC2 is about clue and clicks ^^
Yes, I'm averaging 250ms tired and I used to play a FPS competitively which was equivalent to cal-i for the top players (obviously, not everyone was cal-i caliber). Personally, I'd say predictability plays a huge role in reaction time.
On March 28 2011 14:12 HolyArrow wrote: Has anyone here played around Cal-M/CEVO level Counterstike, or just high-level competitive FPS in general? I'm curious if there's any correlation there.
I'm roughly CAL-M level in CSS without the broken hand at the moment. With my left hand, reaction time is like 238ms T_T
But reaction time doesn't play a MASSIVE role in how good you are, it's also about clue and aim, much like SC2 is about clue and clicks ^^
Yes, I'm averaging 250ms tired and I used to play a FPS competitively which was equivalent to cal-i for the top players (obviously, not everyone was cal-i caliber). Personally, I'd say predictability plays a huge role in reaction time.
Agreed. Being able to kind of infer when and where an enemy will appear based off of map experience/teammate intel/footsteps plays a huge role.
damn i dunno how theres average of 130, either lucky or people must be like the movie Wanted nd have special gifts. no matter how hard i try i average around 200-220.
CS player here, when I was 16 I was averaging 150ms reflex time. My high school physics teacher did not believe it, and to prove me wrong he held a 20 dollar bill and challenged me to catch it while he would drop it through my fingers. Yes I caught it lol.
Interesting test overall, but I doubt a few ms difference will mean anything at all in SC2. The reactions necessary to make a difference in SC2 are a lot more complex than see>click. I would say it has less to do with how fast the signal gets to your brain, registers, and gets back to your hand, and more to do with seeing something, and knowing/deciding what to do quickly (and being right).
I think a time trial on a logic puzzle would have a closer correlation to SC2 skill.
I think the actual test has some effect on (at least my) reaction time. A changing colour seemed harder to react to, in my opinion, than another reaction test that plays like a mini-game. You click the button to shoot a tranqualizier dart every time you see a sheep trying to run away. My results in the original test were around 190-230, but in this sheep-test I focused my gaze on the 2nd and 3rd strip of grass, and got damned consistent results:
P.S. Looking at the expression of those tranqualized sheep can make you miss your next click
I remember doing this test once, almost all of my test scores were over 300 milliseconds. Now I scored ~220 several times. That's weird. I suspect playing SC2 has taught me to think and react faster. That, or good nights sleep and healthier diet.
Just got 85 Average. So should i start practicing SC full time lol? Those didn't save however cause it was to fast did it again got 107 (didn't try as hard) OgsMC is nick number 1
The sheep game is inaccurate though, because it measures based on sheeps location when it stops, not when you actually click. And in some places it starts at a different place. Trust me that ones fail.
I think this actually has some merit to it - I have 265 ms and I am not surprised, because I am a hell of a slow person. Actually, this is more of an issue in SC2 than it was in BW, because it appears to me that things have the tendency to die very quickly, if you do not react in time.
Anyhow, big lol on oGsMC Would be thrilling to know it is really HIM.
207.8, Silver league. SC2 is more focused on your ability to multitask (ie deal with multiple drops) than react to a single event (which would get your lings there 10ms earlier, which might save idk... one drone?)
On March 28 2011 17:59 deL wrote: I was around 240-250 and when I used peripheral it went down to 200-215
I was around 290 and when I used peripheral vision it went down to 240 (average over 5 clicks). I got one false start though.
heh, and then I tried looking at the words again and got 260.
some implications * use of peripheral vision may help * practice may help * being aroused into a higher state of wakefulness by HAPPY FUN TESTS may help (I didn't sleep too well last night)
On March 28 2011 17:59 deL wrote: I was around 240-250 and when I used peripheral it went down to 200-215
I was around 290 and when I used peripheral vision it went down to 240 (average over 5 clicks). I got one false start though.
yeah we used to use this in baseball on defense.. looking slightly up and to the right of the batter at the time of expected contact. it brought by time down by a bout 20-30 ms as well.
The monitor you use will play a part in this as well. My main monitor is known to be pretty slow (SyncMaster 245T) and I scored 265 on average after 30 tries. Just to test I moved the browser to my secondary monitor which is a moderately fast TN (Syncmaster 710T, 12ms, old one) panel and I got 215 on average, often getting as far down as the 180s. With one of the newer, fast, TN panels I'm sure it would be ever lower. A CRT would obviously be ideal for this as well.
I got anywhere from 250 to 350. What I found the most interesting was how I focused on the image and what I looked for changed my results. E.g. at first I was looking for the "Click" text and landed around 350-ish. After that, though, I changed to peripheral vision and landed 250 consistently ( never could get faster than 250 ). I then focused on the red color and got around 275 - 280.
Gold leaguer here. Paying attention I averaged about 233. Not paying attention I averaged about 228. However, the range when I was paying attention was a lot closer, with each click happening from 225-235, where when I wasn't paying attention the range was around 197-260.
I think people should post their ages as well when they post their results, since the common perception is that reaction speeds decline as you get older.
I recall having around 150-180ms reaction times when I did tests like this when I was 15-18, but on this test I was getting around 214 average at 23. I wonder if it's because it's a different test, or because I'm older, or because it's a specific time of the day etc.
On March 28 2011 14:03 OmgIRok wrote: Lol, just imagine for red-green colorblind people..... ><
that's not how daltonism works fyi, if that was a serious comment. i have it, and i fail those tests that they make you do where there's like green balls on red balls and you have to see the number, you know. I only managed to see yellow on dark blue :D but i can see the colours by themselves, it's just that mixing them makes it weird.
got 18 m/s 3 times stopped afterwards since this is not a fair test. you can assume when green will come, if your wrong it wont even count as wrongdoing, this test says nothing about reaction speed..more luck then anything else, but maybe it is hard if your red/green colorblind (lol)
I saw stumbled across this thread last night after a few beers, i averaged at around 230. This afternoon i'm averaging at around 190. It's kind of interesting to see proof that alcohol really does impede your reaction time.
On March 29 2011 01:49 whatthefat wrote: Anything much under 200ms isn't physiologically possible. Some of these scores are clearly people pre-empting the signal.
Also, reaction time depends strongly on circadian phase and time spent awake.
I got 174 several times, and no pre-empting...
In athletics : "The best athletes reaction times are usually in the range of 120 mSec (0.12 sec) to 160 mSec (see graphs below)."
it's not just about reaction time...you could seem to guess when it would change colors. It seemed to change colors after a similar amount of time has passed. It never changed colors for me in the first 2-3 seconds for instance. I got about 170 avg with a combination of having a good guess when it would change and reaction time
when i was in physics class in HS the teacher held a dollar vertically about to drop it. With your thumb and index finger around the center of the dollar about to be dropped you try to catch it. She claimed human reaction time wasn't fast enough to catch it and that if you succeeded you can keep the dollar. I was the first one to volunteer and I caught it and she was so surprised and said nobody had ever caught it before. the other kids just said that it was cause im asian and asians have good reaction time...oh and i was nice and didn't take the dollar even the though in the cafeteria i could buy a chocolate chip ice cream cookie sandwich that were so awesome.
Techniques: (1) Use your peripheral vision. Sensitivity to "movement" or "sudden changes" in your surroundings is higher in your peripheral vision. (2) Program a reaction, not a command. Feedback into your routine, "click on change," and your body will react automatically.
(3) Don't sit down and say, "okay, when is it going to change, oh! there it is! I should click ..." Your score will be bad.
(4) To avoid concentration, blur your eyes a tiny bit out of focus.
(5) Mitigate unnecessary resistance and setup a little "tension." Make sure the pivot of your wrist is not touching anything, but is "floating." This will allow you to snap-release the tension for a faster (read: more accurate) reaction.
Techniques: (1) Use your peripheral vision. Sensitivity to "movement" or "sudden changes" in your surroundings is higher in your peripheral vision. (2) Program a reaction, not a command. Feedback into your routine, "click on change," and your body will react automatically.
(3) Don't sit down and say, "okay, when is it going to change, oh! there it is! I should click ..." Your score will be bad.
(4) To avoid concentration, blur your eyes a tiny bit out of focus.
(5) Mitigate unnecessary resistance and setup a little "tension." Make sure the pivot of your wrist is not touching anything, but is "floating." This will allow you to snap-release the tension for a faster (read: more accurate) reaction.
Looking at your profile there, you have at least one pre-emptive score.
Given what is known in the reaction time literature, I'd be very surprised if you could achieve the same average over > 20 trials without at least one click before a stimulus appears, i.e., the "don't click until you see green again" message.
Techniques: (1) Use your peripheral vision. Sensitivity to "movement" or "sudden changes" in your surroundings is higher in your peripheral vision. (2) Program a reaction, not a command. Feedback into your routine, "click on change," and your body will react automatically.
(3) Don't sit down and say, "okay, when is it going to change, oh! there it is! I should click ..." Your score will be bad.
(4) To avoid concentration, blur your eyes a tiny bit out of focus.
(5) Mitigate unnecessary resistance and setup a little "tension." Make sure the pivot of your wrist is not touching anything, but is "floating." This will allow you to snap-release the tension for a faster (read: more accurate) reaction.
Looking at your profile there, you have at least one pre-emptive score.
Given what is known in the reaction time literature, I'd be very surprised if you could achieve the same average over > 20 trials without at least one click before a stimulus appears, i.e., the "don't click until you see green again" message.
Yeah, anything less than 100ms is referred to by that site as "preemptive," or "lucky." And for the most part, I agree, but I do not rule out the possibility of those instances being largely pre-conscious reactions.
I can tell you that those super low scores, like "50" or so were me "trusting," in the reaction and just letting it happen. It was not me spamming the button and getting lucky.
To elaborate, when you look at the color green there is a series of pre-conscious routines triggered. Your brain grabs all the relevant data pertaining the the environmental signal, examines the array of values, and then informs your consciousness which allows for the cognition of green, or; you being aware of green.
To put it in simpler terms; your brain perceives and processes green before you are aware that you are seeing green. You can absolutely react prior to conscious awareness. You do it every day, all day.
I'm using the perception of green as an example because it is directly relative to the reaction speed test, however, you can really use anything you are familiar with; tree, car, sign, word, name, whatever ...
I've done the test four or five times, typically averaging 140 - 165 ish. I'd say the number of "preemptive" scores is roughly 50/50 with the "don't click until you see green again" response.
Techniques: (1) Use your peripheral vision. Sensitivity to "movement" or "sudden changes" in your surroundings is higher in your peripheral vision. (2) Program a reaction, not a command. Feedback into your routine, "click on change," and your body will react automatically.
(3) Don't sit down and say, "okay, when is it going to change, oh! there it is! I should click ..." Your score will be bad.
(4) To avoid concentration, blur your eyes a tiny bit out of focus.
(5) Mitigate unnecessary resistance and setup a little "tension." Make sure the pivot of your wrist is not touching anything, but is "floating." This will allow you to snap-release the tension for a faster (read: more accurate) reaction.
Looking at your profile there, you have at least one pre-emptive score.
Given what is known in the reaction time literature, I'd be very surprised if you could achieve the same average over > 20 trials without at least one click before a stimulus appears, i.e., the "don't click until you see green again" message.
Yeah, anything less than 100ms is referred to by that site as "preemptive," or "lucky." And for the most part, I agree, but I do not rule out the possibility of those instances being largely pre-conscious reactions.
I can tell you that those super low scores, like "50" or so were me "trusting," in the reaction and just letting it happen. It was not me spamming the button and getting lucky.
To elaborate, when you look at the color green there is a series of pre-conscious routines triggered. Your brain grabs all the relevant data pertaining the the environmental signal, examines the array of values, and then informs your consciousness which allows for the cognition of green, or; you being aware of green.
To put it in simpler terms; your brain perceives and processes green before you are aware that you are seeing green. You can absolutely react prior to conscious awareness. You do it every day, all day.
I'm using the perception of green as an example because it is directly relative to the reaction speed test, however, you can really use anything you are familiar with; tree, car, sign, word, name, whatever ...
I've done the test four or five times, typically averaging 140 - 165 ish. I'd say the number of "preemptive" scores is roughly 50/50 with the "don't click until you see green again" response.
If you're regularly getting a "don't click until you see green again" then you're guessing to some extent, whether consciously or not. There have been a bazillion studies on human reaction times, and what you're describing is regularly seen. Without any guessing, it's not possible for humans to respond much more quickly than 200ms.
Techniques: (1) Use your peripheral vision. Sensitivity to "movement" or "sudden changes" in your surroundings is higher in your peripheral vision. (2) Program a reaction, not a command. Feedback into your routine, "click on change," and your body will react automatically.
(3) Don't sit down and say, "okay, when is it going to change, oh! there it is! I should click ..." Your score will be bad.
(4) To avoid concentration, blur your eyes a tiny bit out of focus.
(5) Mitigate unnecessary resistance and setup a little "tension." Make sure the pivot of your wrist is not touching anything, but is "floating." This will allow you to snap-release the tension for a faster (read: more accurate) reaction.
Looking at your profile there, you have at least one pre-emptive score.
Given what is known in the reaction time literature, I'd be very surprised if you could achieve the same average over > 20 trials without at least one click before a stimulus appears, i.e., the "don't click until you see green again" message.
Yeah, anything less than 100ms is referred to by that site as "preemptive," or "lucky." And for the most part, I agree, but I do not rule out the possibility of those instances being largely pre-conscious reactions.
I can tell you that those super low scores, like "50" or so were me "trusting," in the reaction and just letting it happen. It was not me spamming the button and getting lucky.
To elaborate, when you look at the color green there is a series of pre-conscious routines triggered. Your brain grabs all the relevant data pertaining the the environmental signal, examines the array of values, and then informs your consciousness which allows for the cognition of green, or; you being aware of green.
To put it in simpler terms; your brain perceives and processes green before you are aware that you are seeing green. You can absolutely react prior to conscious awareness. You do it every day, all day.
I'm using the perception of green as an example because it is directly relative to the reaction speed test, however, you can really use anything you are familiar with; tree, car, sign, word, name, whatever ...
I've done the test four or five times, typically averaging 140 - 165 ish. I'd say the number of "preemptive" scores is roughly 50/50 with the "don't click until you see green again" response.
If you're regularly getting a "don't click until you see green again" then you're guessing to some extent, whether consciously or not. There have been a bazillion studies on human reaction times, and what you're describing is regularly seen. Without any guessing, it's not possible for humans to respond much more quickly than 200ms.
Well ...
Your last sentence is just not correct. But, I get what you're saying.
Many researchers have confirmed that reaction to sound is faster than reaction to light, with mean auditory reaction times being 140-160 msec and visual reaction times being 180-200 msec (Galton, 1899; Woodworth and Schlosberg, 1954; Fieandt et al., 1956; Welford, 1980; Brebner and Welford, 1980). Perhaps this is because an auditory stimulus only takes 8-10 msec to reach the brain (Kemp et al., 1973), but a visual stimulus takes 20-40 msec (Marshall et al., 1943). Reaction time to touch is intermediate, at 155 msec (Robinson, 1934). Differences in reaction time between these types of stimuli persist whether the subject is asked to make a simple response or a complex response (Sanders, 1998, p. 114).
For about 120 years, the accepted figures for mean simple reaction times for college-age individuals have been about 190 ms (0.19 sec) for light stimuli and about 160 ms for sound stimuli (Galton, 1899; Fieandt et al., 1956; Welford, 1980; Brebner and Welford, 1980). However, Eckner et al. (2010) reported that the reaction times of NCAA football players averaged 0.203 sec when determined with a simple falling meter stick but 0.268 sec when measured with a computer. Reaction times measured at Clemson are usually closer to 0.268 sec for a simple visual stimulus.
Source: A Literature Review on Reaction Time by Robert J. Kosinski Clemson University
Techniques: (1) Use your peripheral vision. Sensitivity to "movement" or "sudden changes" in your surroundings is higher in your peripheral vision. (2) Program a reaction, not a command. Feedback into your routine, "click on change," and your body will react automatically.
(3) Don't sit down and say, "okay, when is it going to change, oh! there it is! I should click ..." Your score will be bad.
(4) To avoid concentration, blur your eyes a tiny bit out of focus.
(5) Mitigate unnecessary resistance and setup a little "tension." Make sure the pivot of your wrist is not touching anything, but is "floating." This will allow you to snap-release the tension for a faster (read: more accurate) reaction.
Looking at your profile there, you have at least one pre-emptive score.
Given what is known in the reaction time literature, I'd be very surprised if you could achieve the same average over > 20 trials without at least one click before a stimulus appears, i.e., the "don't click until you see green again" message.
Yeah, anything less than 100ms is referred to by that site as "preemptive," or "lucky." And for the most part, I agree, but I do not rule out the possibility of those instances being largely pre-conscious reactions.
I can tell you that those super low scores, like "50" or so were me "trusting," in the reaction and just letting it happen. It was not me spamming the button and getting lucky.
To elaborate, when you look at the color green there is a series of pre-conscious routines triggered. Your brain grabs all the relevant data pertaining the the environmental signal, examines the array of values, and then informs your consciousness which allows for the cognition of green, or; you being aware of green.
To put it in simpler terms; your brain perceives and processes green before you are aware that you are seeing green. You can absolutely react prior to conscious awareness. You do it every day, all day.
I'm using the perception of green as an example because it is directly relative to the reaction speed test, however, you can really use anything you are familiar with; tree, car, sign, word, name, whatever ...
I've done the test four or five times, typically averaging 140 - 165 ish. I'd say the number of "preemptive" scores is roughly 50/50 with the "don't click until you see green again" response.
If you're regularly getting a "don't click until you see green again" then you're guessing to some extent, whether consciously or not. There have been a bazillion studies on human reaction times, and what you're describing is regularly seen. Without any guessing, it's not possible for humans to respond much more quickly than 200ms.
Well ...
Your last sentence is just not correct. But, I get what you're saying.
Many researchers have confirmed that reaction to sound is faster than reaction to light, with mean auditory reaction times being 140-160 msec and visual reaction times being 180-200 msec (Galton, 1899; Woodworth and Schlosberg, 1954; Fieandt et al., 1956; Welford, 1980; Brebner and Welford, 1980). Perhaps this is because an auditory stimulus only takes 8-10 msec to reach the brain (Kemp et al., 1973), but a visual stimulus takes 20-40 msec (Marshall et al., 1943). Reaction time to touch is intermediate, at 155 msec (Robinson, 1934). Differences in reaction time between these types of stimuli persist whether the subject is asked to make a simple response or a complex response (Sanders, 1998, p. 114).
For about 120 years, the accepted figures for mean simple reaction times for college-age individuals have been about 190 ms (0.19 sec) for light stimuli and about 160 ms for sound stimuli (Galton, 1899; Fieandt et al., 1956; Welford, 1980; Brebner and Welford, 1980). However, Eckner et al. (2010) reported that the reaction times of NCAA football players averaged 0.203 sec when determined with a simple falling meter stick but 0.268 sec when measured with a computer. Reaction times measured at Clemson are usually closer to 0.268 sec for a simple visual stimulus.
I said "Without any guessing, it's not possible for humans to respond much more quickly than 200ms". This is correct and your sources corroborate this exactly (see bolded statements).
I dunno if it has something to do with my monitor or it requires some technique w/e but its just impossible to get below 220 for me with an average of 250. I used to be a pretty good Q3A player and consider my reaction pretty fast.
On March 29 2011 06:16 Skillz_Man wrote: 175ms average. I was getting 158-162ms on the ones I was really foced on, but then I blink or something and get 210ms.
Average stuff - Make sure to put your eyes to the scree nas close as possible to reduce travel time of light into your eyes.
what? You know light travels at 300 000km/s right? (about) not like 1 meter will change anything...
On March 29 2011 06:16 Skillz_Man wrote: 175ms average. I was getting 158-162ms on the ones I was really foced on, but then I blink or something and get 210ms.
Average stuff - Make sure to put your eyes to the scree nas close as possible to reduce travel time of light into your eyes.
what? You know light travels at 300 000km/s right? (about) not like 1 meter will change anything...
You never know, if you move from 0.4 m to 8 cm, that extra 0.00000107 ms (1.07 ns) might just give you the edge.
On March 29 2011 06:16 Skillz_Man wrote: 175ms average. I was getting 158-162ms on the ones I was really foced on, but then I blink or something and get 210ms.
Average stuff - Make sure to put your eyes to the scree nas close as possible to reduce travel time of light into your eyes.
what? You know light travels at 300 000km/s right? (about) not like 1 meter will change anything...
Lol it was sarcasm ... But listen to the poster below you
259, 259, 233, 217, 217, 215, 214 Average with 5 clicks each :/
My fastest click was 166 towards the end.
I've been sick thou for 4 days with a slight headache, I'm also frickin blind with over - 4,50 near-sightedness (FML) and 5 year old weak glasses, so my hearing is the sense I rely on the most. Through military testing and music, I know I have a heightened hearing, I react to everything and can hear the smallest of decibels.
Btw is that really Day9 at #1 with 103.6 on the leaderbord or just someone from TL used the name?
I have horrible reaction time..but I already knew that...plus I don't sleep enough :x
Keep getting around 275-ish average. Low diamond with around 150 games played..but I haven't played any since January due to a military deployment coming up very soon now.
It’s not really reaction time that holds most players back, per se. it’s more not knowing what to do in situations and having to slow down to think and then doing the wrong thing.
reaction time is probably the opposite of what you should be looking at as a biometric. foresight and an understanding of the game state are much more (learn-able and) appropriate skills that would be tied to performance.
maybe once in every few games, reaction time comes into play. for instance when sc2 was first released in pvz you had to stare at your ramp waiting for the baneling bust to forcefield. nowadays, there are far less unforgiving split-second game wins/losses and the game's mechanics have, with every passing expansion and patch, moved away from this finickiness. and i think it is for the better just for the game, not to mention you dont need ~100-150ms reaction time to play at a high level
174ms and that felt quite slow (I'm also soon 30 years old. Teenagers and early 20s should be quicker). If people have over 200ms, try sitting closer to the screen. If more of your field of vision fills up with the color, it's easier for the signal to bypass your cognitive brain and go directly to your finger, instead of you having to actively think to do it.
As other have mentioned tho, this has almost assuredly nothing to do with sc2 abilities.
On March 30 2011 04:19 Kelethius wrote: holy shit how did those guys get 135... im average around 200ms... top200 in sc2
The site doesn't move on if you click to early, and rather gives you another chance. You could just keep guessing until you get lucky and end up with a ridiculous low number with no representation of reality.
On March 30 2011 04:19 Kelethius wrote: holy shit how did those guys get 135... im average around 200ms... top200 in sc2
The site doesn't move on if you click to early, and rather gives you another chance. You could just keep guessing until you get lucky and end up with a ridiculous low number with no representation of reality.
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/oNOR7.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/sQ7Jp.png)
![[image loading]](http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/7808/35012764.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Frc7H.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Kz6j6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0a5dB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/21mavep.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/JFqj6.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/M3PIu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img21.imageshack.us/i/10688163.gif/)
.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WT3sh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7eGxA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7337/199n.png)
![[image loading]](http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af247/TnTPhotography55/171ms.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/1vxjq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/853/utennavnq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/7699/lol0ms.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9UsWf.png)
![[image loading]](http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n201/radioamerica/prod.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K4Q8r.png)
![[image loading]](http://s3.noelshack.com/uploads/images/8981960674104_capture_dacran_20110328__182821.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XE3BV.png)
![[image loading]](http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv87/doyouder/reactioncut.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/aF6AZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i54.tinypic.com/2ak08pc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7Rf64.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/R2WZr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/H7aza.png)
![[image loading]](http://i1219.photobucket.com/albums/dd424/tuestresfat/reactiontime.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cbhdq.png)
![[image loading]](http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1788/bossreactions.png)
